The Squire

The Squire

Lives in United Kingdom Bath, United Kingdom
Works as a Workaholic
Joined on Mar 30, 2007

Comments

Total: 150, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On BPG image format aims to replace JPEGs article (191 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Squire: Would be great to have a file format with a size somewhere between JPEG and RAW, that holds enough data for a bit of post-processing.

I'd love a standardized compressed RAW format. 14bit, bayer data but with varying levels of loss-less to lossy data compression.

Remember when cameras shot in TIFF, before RAW took off?

TIFF is uncompressed by default, and loss-less if the likes of LZW are used. Being up to 16bit, TIFF quality is high. But also files are very large, without the benefits of RAW of being able to adjust color balance.

I'd rather have a format that lets me choose, at the point of capture, whether I want lossless or lossy compression, how much color depth.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 17, 2014 at 09:52 UTC
On BPG image format aims to replace JPEGs article (191 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Squire: Would be great to have a file format with a size somewhere between JPEG and RAW, that holds enough data for a bit of post-processing.

I'd love a standardized compressed RAW format. 14bit, bayer data but with varying levels of loss-less to lossy data compression.

@Andy, and that's the frustration. It's open. It's as close to a standard RAW format as we've got, because it's used by the defactor standard workflow and editing software from Adobe. And yet, it's still not widely adopted.

So what chance does any other image format have?

I still think that it will be the web that forces a new image standard as web designers want to maximse quality while reducing image/video size. Higher resolution devices and the trend to full-width media, combined with new HVEC codecs emerging may be enough to mean a new format is adopted for display purposes. Hopefully one that's got the flexibility of JPEG2000 and BPG to also be a useful file capture format.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 16, 2014 at 11:26 UTC
On BPG image format aims to replace JPEGs article (191 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Squire: Would be great to have a file format with a size somewhere between JPEG and RAW, that holds enough data for a bit of post-processing.

I'd love a standardized compressed RAW format. 14bit, bayer data but with varying levels of loss-less to lossy data compression.

@Nukunukoo, Good tip for archive. Will investigate that as I currently only archive 8MP/90% JPGs for off-site last line of defense back-ups.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 16, 2014 at 10:18 UTC
On BPG image format aims to replace JPEGs article (191 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Squire: Would be great to have a file format with a size somewhere between JPEG and RAW, that holds enough data for a bit of post-processing.

I'd love a standardized compressed RAW format. 14bit, bayer data but with varying levels of loss-less to lossy data compression.

Agreed, there's compressed RAW formats. But they're not standard. To be really useful (for anything but archive) they need to be as universal as JPG, at least in enthusiast/pro workflows from camera to display/distribution.

I can't capture a compressed DNG, to save space on my camera's SD card.
I can't post a compressed DNG on an HTML web page to offer a higher quality viewing experience compared to JPG.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 16, 2014 at 10:16 UTC
On BPG image format aims to replace JPEGs article (191 comments in total)

Today, most people seem happy with terrible low resolution, artifacty JPGs - See any photo ever hosted on Facebook.

What will drive adoption of a new format?

Possibly web design. There's a trend now for full width images and even video on webpages. To keep these sizes small today, they tend to be very compressed. I can imagine HVEC-based compression, which seems to cut file sizes in half, being a popular choice if it is adopted by the major browsers.

Once those formats become standard on the web, we'll see greater adoption across image editing tools then... maybe... straight out of the camera. Maybe.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 16, 2014 at 10:12 UTC as 25th comment | 1 reply
On BPG image format aims to replace JPEGs article (191 comments in total)
In reply to:

Simon97: Never cared for JPEG2000. It seems to create a whole new set of artifacts from JPEG. At higher compression, it didn't make those visible 8x8 squares like regular JPEG, but it softens some parts of the image and tries to show detail in other parts, making a glitchy looking image.

This new BPG format does do a better job, but gives a smeared look to detail at higher compression.

Like the audio compression formats, there is always a compromise. Better to use them at the least compressed setting possible.

I don't see much benefit to higher bit levels in a compressed format. If I was going to edit the image, I'd use raw and use the compressed format as the end result.

JPEG2000 may introduce its own compression artifacts in some cases, but support for it would allow use to shoot loss-less, 16bit color depth files in camera, given us an option with quality/size somewhere between JPG and RAW. For that reason alone it would be nice to see more support for JPG2000.

For me, shooting at something like 90% JPG quality but with a decent bit-depth would be a nice option - Images I can process on the go (on smartphone, tablet etc) but with enough data for significant post-processing.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 16, 2014 at 10:06 UTC
On BPG image format aims to replace JPEGs article (191 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Squire: Would be great to have a file format with a size somewhere between JPEG and RAW, that holds enough data for a bit of post-processing.

I'd love a standardized compressed RAW format. 14bit, bayer data but with varying levels of loss-less to lossy data compression.

Nice to have a choice though, and a variable amount of compression... AND have a standard so I can shoot it and process it anywhere I can process JPG today.

But not gonna happen...

Oh hang on it did. JPG2000, with its loss-less option, 16 and 32bit color depth and support for multiple color spaces.

Why's *that* not used more by high-end cameras?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 16, 2014 at 10:01 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1068 comments in total)
In reply to:

yesman12: DPR, why do you compare this to the Nikon D7100 when the Pentax K3 is a more capable camera for APSc and is probably the best APSc on the market? even your own image quality comparison put the K3 above the 7DII. Yes Nikon is more popular but the pentax is better...

I think it's because all the K3 owners are on this forum and have already decided not to buy the 7Dii because...the K3 is AWESOME.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 16, 2014 at 09:50 UTC
On BPG image format aims to replace JPEGs article (191 comments in total)

Would be great to have a file format with a size somewhere between JPEG and RAW, that holds enough data for a bit of post-processing.

I'd love a standardized compressed RAW format. 14bit, bayer data but with varying levels of loss-less to lossy data compression.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 16, 2014 at 08:52 UTC as 27th comment | 11 replies
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1068 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Squire: This is the beginning of Canon's transitioning to a new market.

On DPR and elsewhere, reviewers and forums have been asking - what is Canon going to do next, to remain relevant when Sony, Panasonic and even Samsung are innovating more, and creating new markets for cameras?

It's a better APS-C DSLR. It demonstrates very little technical innovation. But that's fine. it suits a niche of users.

Maybe the 7Dii isn't meant to be Canon's answer (rumors of them getting 'serious' about mirrorless in 2015...) BUT it is a signpost that future.

And the final destination for Canon (and probably Nikon)?

See Leica....

Leica once dominated mainstream enthusiast/pro photography. Technology and the market changed. Japanese companies came to dominate the market. But Leica lived on doing what they do well in what became a small niche of fans who appreciated their style.

This is exactly where Canon and Nikon will end up. Eventually.

But in 10, 20 years, Nikon and Canon may still be around, selling those big retro camera bodies that still have mirrors in them and optical viewfinders. You know, pure photography.

Meanwhile, the only thing you can find in your local shop or on amazon are Sonys, Panasonics and... ur.... those new Toshiba cameras ;)

Direct link | Posted on Dec 14, 2014 at 11:07 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1068 comments in total)

This is the beginning of Canon's transitioning to a new market.

On DPR and elsewhere, reviewers and forums have been asking - what is Canon going to do next, to remain relevant when Sony, Panasonic and even Samsung are innovating more, and creating new markets for cameras?

It's a better APS-C DSLR. It demonstrates very little technical innovation. But that's fine. it suits a niche of users.

Maybe the 7Dii isn't meant to be Canon's answer (rumors of them getting 'serious' about mirrorless in 2015...) BUT it is a signpost that future.

And the final destination for Canon (and probably Nikon)?

See Leica....

Direct link | Posted on Dec 14, 2014 at 11:07 UTC as 76th comment | 5 replies
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1068 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Squire: Wow. My LX100 pocket camera seems to do better 1080p than the 7Dmk2, never-mind 4K.

@eno2 - Thanks for the response. If you're buying new kit, buy the best quality-for-price. Be daft not too. Just wondered if the quality part of the equation also makes a noticeable difference to your business.

Back in 2010 my wedding photog offered to do a video, for free, as they were trialing it as a new product. Of course I said yes. Shot it with a 5D I think. It was similar to your work (described as a 'music video' rather than the usual wedding video). Needless to say I love it.

But I (yes, even I) haven't pixel peeped the resultant file.

Maybe I should pull it up on my 1440p screen to provide some technical feedback to the photog ;)

Direct link | Posted on Dec 14, 2014 at 10:53 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1068 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Squire: Wow. My LX100 pocket camera seems to do better 1080p than the 7Dmk2, never-mind 4K.

So I took a look at eno2's work after Miki pointed it out.

Good stuff.

So, pixel peeping and technology aside, I'd like to hear eno2's opinion on how much difference 'good' or 'bad-ish' video would mean to a professional. Particularly when you're delivering to the public rather than, say, broadcasters.

What does 1080p that looks like 1080 lines mean to you vs. 1080p that looks like 700 lines? Less missed footage, faster workflow thanks to better grading...?

(Trying to steer the debate to the effect on end results...)

Direct link | Posted on Dec 14, 2014 at 10:16 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1068 comments in total)
In reply to:

RaghavBaijal: Hi DPR. Just a suggestion.

As video becomes more & more mainstream for DSLRs & Mirrorless, it would make a lot of sense if you could post video samples on Vimeo instead of YouTube due to compression. Its very difficult to judge Video quality online due to the excessive amount of compression YouTube applies to all videos.

Only benefit of Vimeo over YT, is that it does give the option of supplying the original file to signed-in users.

But as DPR does that inside the review pages anyway...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 14, 2014 at 10:05 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1068 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: Well, its results, posted here, do not inspire, but that is a personal thing with me. A long time ago I got rid of a 40D I had bought new, not because it did not work, it worked fine, or due to its resolution, which was fine, but due to the sad fact that compared to my 1Ds, the results were flat, processed and boring. They did not look real. They did not convince, and looking at the samples posted here, nothing has improved at all.

As a photographer I do not need to waste frames in the futile hope that the machine takes better pictures than I do, I do not need the dreadful video quality you get from DSLRs these days either.

So since this thing costs as much as a D750, and double a D7100 (whose results are much better, much), what exactly are Canon doing? This is LOT of money for not a lot of QUALITY.

You can buy a mint secondhand 1D MkIV for the same money, or TWO 70D bodies, or a 6D brand new with 24105f4 thingy. Or a D610 with a 2485thingy.
I bet no reviewer here has bought one!!

The days when full frame commanded a big price difference from APS-C have gone.

I can accept a D750 and D7ii cost about the same if the D7ii performs at the top of its game.

Same for smaller sensors too. The GH4 only succeeds as an enthusiast/pro camera because it does what it does amazingly well, and does everything else at least competitively.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 14, 2014 at 10:03 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1068 comments in total)
In reply to:

ozturert: Again, I see a lot of messages like "this is a terrible camera because I don't need it".

"My RX100 III is much smaller than this!"
"My Nikon is lighter and has more megapixels!"
"My camera takes better videos!"
"My camera is..."

Yes your camera is better.

I am being down on Canon, because this is a Canon product review thread.

The other manufacturers of APS-C camera's have also largely missed a win recently. IMHO.

They're all ok products. But that's all.

Nikon at least has moved forward with image quality. And Sony's A77mk2 has *just* shown a little bit of innovation by adding a better codec with XAVC-S.

But none have achieved the goal of (to use someone else's term on this forum) a universal workhorse of an APS-C camera.

I will single Canon out though: At least the others seem to have the technology elsewhere in their product range to create an innovative APC-C platform. Canon, by contrast, seem under-invested in their sensors and firmware.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 14, 2014 at 09:55 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1068 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Squire: Wow. My LX100 pocket camera seems to do better 1080p than the 7Dmk2, never-mind 4K.

I'd have thought birders and action shooters would have *loved* a high quality video codec (whether FHD or UHD, whatever, but clean) for their hobby/profession. No?

Video is nice to have, gives you more creative options, and you can get paid for it too.

A good 4K photo mode can capture shots you'd otherwise miss.

Now, in this case, I don't think the GH4/LX100 is quite there yet with 4K photo mode, so this would be a place for Canon to innovate and lead the market.

The best of Sony A7s sensor output, Samsung's H265 codec (with software support!), GH4's flexibility, Canon's ergonomics, Canon's lens range... WINNER!

Expect to see these enthusiast features in a $10k+ EOS-C, soon...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 14, 2014 at 09:46 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1068 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Squire: Wow. My LX100 pocket camera seems to do better 1080p than the 7Dmk2, never-mind 4K.

@karlwunsch has hit the nail on the head:

"The 7Dmk2 was never meant to be the universal workhorse." - karlwunsch

So the birders are happy. But the push back on this thread is... so what about the rest of us? We expected the 7Dmk2 to be the ultimate APC-C workhorse.

And Canon did too...

"From the street to the studio, the EOS 7D Mark II performs in every photographic situation." - Canon

"Take your movie projects to the next level with industry-standard features." - Canon

SO, Karl. You're right. It's no workhorse. But is *was* meant to be....

Direct link | Posted on Dec 12, 2014 at 15:22 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1068 comments in total)
In reply to:

ozturert: Again, I see a lot of messages like "this is a terrible camera because I don't need it".

"My RX100 III is much smaller than this!"
"My Nikon is lighter and has more megapixels!"
"My camera takes better videos!"
"My camera is..."

Yes your camera is better.

@Ozturert - True, c.f. my reply above. This camera has a target user: It's existing Canon APS-C users. I can't see it being a camera that grows the Canon user community much though.

My LX100 is better for me. Heck, my Sony A700 is better for me. And that doesn't even have wifi.

That's why it only got Silver. It's a great Canon. 84%! The best APS-C Canon you can buy.

But unless 'being Canon' is what makes this camera best for you, then look elsewhere.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 12, 2014 at 13:31 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1068 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Squire: Wow. My LX100 pocket camera seems to do better 1080p than the 7Dmk2, never-mind 4K.

Don't you feel short-changed, paying hundreds for a (professional) system only to receive sub-standard features?

I would.

I'd be angry at Canon.

You're paying for that 1080p. For the R&D. For the hardware. Whether you use it or not.

At least they should live up to their own 'professional' hype and deliver features that match the rest of the market.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 12, 2014 at 11:10 UTC
Total: 150, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »