falconeyes

falconeyes

Lives in Germany Germany
Has a website at falklumo.blogspot.com
Joined on Apr 28, 2008

Comments

Total: 395, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

falconeyes: Interesting and important article.

However, it should have used fewer words. The article makes a simple matter look more complicated than it really is. And may discourage some to read it.

Everybody thinking that noise is (mostly) a camera artefact should read the article tough.

Thanks for replying.

BTW. one of the most interesting topics left in camera technology (and rarely discussed) is the suggested ergonomics of an isoless camera. An isoless camera (covered in your Part 2, I guess) has no read noise/dark current/quantization noise and therefore, no native iso setting. And no simulated one too as it would cripple the highlight capacity (FWC) for no good reason.

But a photographer would STILL want to tell his camera to use more or less light, depending on the shooting situation. And he would STILL want to tell his camera of he wanted the images darker or brighter in appearance. All w/o an ISO setting. This will become an interesting conversation in the future.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 27, 2015 at 23:12 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: The problem of shutter-induced blur in VR systems has a long history.

Interesting, vendors (Nikon, Sony, Canon, Olympus, Pentax) don't more seriously test their products against it.

Here you find an in-depth study of the same problem for the Pentax K-7 camera which actually got translated to Japansese to be discussed in the engineering dep.
-> http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/k7shutter/index.html

Pentax eventually solved the issue for their K-5 update.

I would need a lens with and w/o the fix and do some measurements to tell.

In the simplest of worlds, the problem was just a missing dampening factor in the control loop algorithm which brings the VR lens group position from actual state to target state (using a VR lens group position sensor to measure deviations). The VR lens group voice coils are an active system (even if gyros don't generate any correction signal)! With too low a dampening, it could exhibit resonance. A firmware fix could just update a constant in the algorithm, simple as that. Or it could be order of magnitudes more intricate.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 27, 2015 at 22:59 UTC

Interesting and important article.

However, it should have used fewer words. The article makes a simple matter look more complicated than it really is. And may discourage some to read it.

Everybody thinking that noise is (mostly) a camera artefact should read the article tough.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 27, 2015 at 22:48 UTC as 129th comment | 11 replies
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-3 II article (514 comments in total)
In reply to:

SimenO1: Nobody commented on the price yet? K-3 was introduced at 1299 $. K-3II adds a 199$ worth O-GPS1 unit (and other goodies) and is priced DOWN to 1099 $. Thats a bargain!

Makes me wonder if the pricing makes room for a ~1500 $ full frame later this year. I can't belive Pentax will introduce only a low cost FF model. They probably will introduce a high end model with class leading features too at maby 2500 $.

The competing models, Nikon D7100 and D7200, have been launched at USD 1600 and USD 1200 resp., a price drop of $400.

That's why the higher end market goes mirrorless or FF, the price in the DSLR APSC segment erodes.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 13:18 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: I checked out the ACR9 update for PS CS6 which was released along LR6.

It lacks the UI for the additional LR6 features (like erasing from the gradient filter). However, it actually DOES recognize those enhanced features (e.g., if found in the accompanying .xmp sidecar file) and renders LR6 editings correctly. Only thing missing are the extra buttons in the UI.

So, there are no problems to be expected in handing over a LR6-edited raw file over to one or several PS CS6 smart object layers.

IMPORTANT NEWS
============
@tlinn thank You for the caveat. However, I double checked with ACR9 (9.0.0.414 for CS6) and this behaviour has been massively IMPROVED!

If I import a NEF with radial and gradient filters, both with parts of the mask painted out, these filters are maintained if I edit the smart object in ACR. I can even modify the gradient with erase brush: the gradient will move but the erasings stay in place. The radial filters remains enabled although its pin remains invisible and cannot be edited. Also, applying a healing brush doesn't hurt. All that remains as it should once ACR is closed and the layer is rendered or rasterized.

I checked and it doesn't matter if the raw is opened outside LR via XMP sidecar (saved from LR) or opened "as smart object" from within LR, with or w/o sidecar. And it doesn't matter if the smart object is copied into an independent layer.

So in summary, Adobe have fixed this issue with ACR in CS6 and ACR9 is a BIG improvement for CS6!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 12:55 UTC
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-3 II article (514 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: "...we're disappointed by ... the disappearance of the built-in flash..."

Really? P-TTL is so bad at controlling more than one off-camera flash, why would you put up with such a bad optical triggering system (that does not even support HSS through the built-in flash and requires line-of-sight)?

Using a dedicated radio trigger on camera with direct control over manual flash levels right from the camera position is so much better and adequate for a camera in this price bracket.

Actually, I use the Phottix Odin which adds radio-controlled TTL operation to Nikon's optical CLS. Unfortunately, it is available only for Canon, Nikon and Sony.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 12:01 UTC
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-3 II article (514 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: "...we're disappointed by ... the disappearance of the built-in flash..."

Really? P-TTL is so bad at controlling more than one off-camera flash, why would you put up with such a bad optical triggering system (that does not even support HSS through the built-in flash and requires line-of-sight)?

Using a dedicated radio trigger on camera with direct control over manual flash levels right from the camera position is so much better and adequate for a camera in this price bracket.

Thanks Class A for addressing the flash issues.

I understand the compromise to be made between flash and GPS in an existing body with limited space. However, I am not convinced that this was the best way to go for Pentax.

Agreed, optical control of slave flashes is not optimal. But then Pentax should have addressed this and incorporated a radio flash trigger and release a new external flash with radio receiver, like what Canon did. There was enough tme since the release of the K-3. And an upgrade to radio-controlled flashes would have explained the removal of flash in their professional line DSLR.

But in its current form, exchange of flash for something many pros regard a gimmick, GPS, leaves the emotion of a bad execution of a good idea, i.e., to add GPS to the body.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 10:26 UTC
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-3 II article (514 comments in total)
In reply to:

audiobomber: Hopefully the K-3 II review will be written by Dan Bracaglia and Rishi Sanyal. They did a great job on the A77 II review, especially the focus testing. The K-3 was sabotaged by all the wrong settings for the AF-C test.

@Rishi, if DPR invests thinking into AFC testing ...

IMHO, the only meaningful way to go is to measure Max(dM/dt). Where M is the magnification and dM/dt is its speed if change. If a subject approaches, dM/dt increases and there will be a threshold beyond which AFC will fail. This threshold is the measurement. If one plots blur over dM/dt with enough iterations, the threshold will become obvious, like -6dB thresholds in audio. Almost all tests fail to understand that AFC is about ability to follow change, not percentages sharp images.

Combine that with a separate measurement of ability to track a subject across the field (dM=0) with and w/o color separation. And robustness against perturbations (like foreground obstacle) and you have a test. Otherwise, no.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 10:10 UTC

I checked out the ACR9 update for PS CS6 which was released along LR6.

It lacks the UI for the additional LR6 features (like erasing from the gradient filter). However, it actually DOES recognize those enhanced features (e.g., if found in the accompanying .xmp sidecar file) and renders LR6 editings correctly. Only thing missing are the extra buttons in the UI.

So, there are no problems to be expected in handing over a LR6-edited raw file over to one or several PS CS6 smart object layers.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 22:52 UTC as 10th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

AksCT: I have been using my version of averaging to get rid of ND filter and avoid its problems. Description here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55507249

It is good to see Adobe has included it as built-in function, which is a time-saver.

Technically correct, but speaking in terms of effective ISO is much simpler really: effective ISO = ISO/N where N is number of shots averaged.

It could be done (if alignment is not required, i.e., if on a tripod) to the RAW data (which would be blazingly fast), rewritten as Bayer-DNG with the effective ISO rewitten into the EXIF field. *That* would be cool. Heck, the camera could do that easily already, activated by a lower-than native ISO setting.

Watch out for ISO 4 raw files ...

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 22:34 UTC
In reply to:

Michael Uschold: For those of you wondering whether you want to get the CC version or upgrade, here are some numbers. This is most relevant for those who already own a desktop version of LR, like to upgrade regularly and cannot or do not want to pay for a PS desktop version.

LR5 came out June 9, 2013, which is 681 days (22.37 months) before LR6 came out. It was only 461 days or 15.14 from LR4 to LR5.

1. CC: LR + PS $9.99/month

2a. Desktop: LR5 to LR6 average cost was $3.53/month ($79 / 22.37)
2b: Desktop: LR4 to LR5 average cost was $5.21/month ($79 / 15.14)
2c: Deskt op: LR4 to LR6 average cost was $4.21/month ($158/ 37.52)

So if having PS is worth $5.78 or so per month ($9.99 - $4.21) and you like small monthly payments, it may be worth considering PS + LR CC.

I generally don't like subscription software, but these numbers kind of surprised me. I don't happen to need PS, but for those that do, price does not seem to be a significant deterant from getting PS + LR CC.

True, migration is possible.

But the time (read cost) required to reach the same productivity level one already had with a different piece of software may be higher and actually higher than say 50$/month should Adobe decide the standard CC subscription is the one you need.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 22:25 UTC
In reply to:

Robert98: Visited PhotoAcute's site, searched for a profile for my camera (a7II). Not there. Checked date of last update - November last year (oh dear, doesn't look good). Visited their support forum (http://photoacute.com/forum/index.php/topic,1346.0.html):

Dear PhotoAcute users,

It's time to confess and apologize.

In the end of the last year we found ourselves in a situation when we have no resources to develop and support PhotoAcute without a harm to our projects. At the moment we do not support PhotoAcute anymore, so we do not produce the profiles as well.

We still hope to revitalize the project in future but I cannot give any warranty.

PhotoAcute is best used w/o a camera profile. I.e., use the camera profile with the least impact which is the profile of the ideal lens.

The profile I am using for years now is Nikon D40/Sigma 30/1.4 at F4.5. Just use any profile where the lens is MUCH better than the sensor requires. I don't care if they say to maintain the software as it just works.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 17:46 UTC
In reply to:

JameOl: Quite cool. Despite not many new features it is visibly faster. Really like the update.

When you buy LR6, the download can be installed in trial mode w/o a license key.

It will be just a matter of days until the corresponding download links will emerge ... I actually think it is legal to do so.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 17:29 UTC
In reply to:

Mssimo: Just confirmed that HDR images can also be merged into pano. Welcome the HDR Raw Pano.

A few more observations ...

Pano worked (for me) with -3EV underexposed RAWs (a city nightscape) which I did to preserve the city highlights. It worked which is a good thing. Some pano software fails to extract keypoints with underexposed images.

However, it did not do a good job in straighten the horizon, even auto-level on the result fails. Projections are Spherical, Cylindrical and Rectilinear only, which is a bit limiting. Had to straighten and crop manually. But the result retained the full DR.

With the limitited UI, I guess the pano feature is hit or miss. But it is a good thing for preflight before deciding to bring images into more powerful tools such as Autopano etc.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 17:24 UTC

I checked out the ACR9 update for PS CS6 which was released along LR6.

It lacks the UI for the additional LR6 features (like erasing from the gradient filter). However, it actually DOES recognize those enhanced features (e.g., if found in the accompanying .xmp sidecar file) and renders LR6 editings correctly. Only thing missing are the extra buttons in the UI.

So, there are no problems to be expected in handing over a LR6-edited raw file over to one or several PS CS6 smart object layers.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 17:02 UTC as 37th comment
In reply to:

Michael Uschold: For those of you wondering whether you want to get the CC version or upgrade, here are some numbers. This is most relevant for those who already own a desktop version of LR, like to upgrade regularly and cannot or do not want to pay for a PS desktop version.

LR5 came out June 9, 2013, which is 681 days (22.37 months) before LR6 came out. It was only 461 days or 15.14 from LR4 to LR5.

1. CC: LR + PS $9.99/month

2a. Desktop: LR5 to LR6 average cost was $3.53/month ($79 / 22.37)
2b: Desktop: LR4 to LR5 average cost was $5.21/month ($79 / 15.14)
2c: Deskt op: LR4 to LR6 average cost was $4.21/month ($158/ 37.52)

So if having PS is worth $5.78 or so per month ($9.99 - $4.21) and you like small monthly payments, it may be worth considering PS + LR CC.

I generally don't like subscription software, but these numbers kind of surprised me. I don't happen to need PS, but for those that do, price does not seem to be a significant deterant from getting PS + LR CC.

Must be a cultural thing then (UK/US/AUS). Many Germans try to assert their interest rate for 20+ years with an option to buy out after 10. Idea is to have it paid off. Don't want to become hostages of their banks ...

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 12:58 UTC
In reply to:

mailman88: How to upgrade to Adobe Lightroom 6
The update to LR6 is available only on Adobe’s site, and it is pretty hidden. To update from LR5 or LR4 to LR6 follow these instructions:
•Head over to Adobe’s site
•Under “Photoshop Lightroom 6 – $149″ click “Buy”
•Change your purchase from “Full” to “Upgrade”
•Next, select the version of LR you actually own
•Check-out and pay $79 for the upgrade
https://www.adobe.com/products/catalog/software._sl_id-contentfilter_sl_catalog_sl_software_sl_photoshopcollection.html?PID=6151031

The full version of Adobe Lightroom 6 are on sale for $149: Adorama | B&H Photo

LR update versions ask for previous license if previous version isn't installed. Same for LR6.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 09:53 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Grupp: Any serious hobbyist or professional who thinks that it's worth switching to another platform just because Adobe rents a combination of Photoshop and Lightroom for a measly $9.95/month is either just playing around or being flat-out unrealistic. I get it -- some of us would prefer to own the software. Well, that's not on the table. The question is, if you are serious, is $9.95 a month really burdensome? Not even close. And if you have invested hundreds, maybe thousands of hours in learning the ins and outs of Adobe products, switching to something else because you think $9.95 is too much to pay is being penny smart and pound foolish.

It appears obvious to me that somebody who lets himself be tricked into a 10$ subscription today, will be tricked into the 20$ app subscription soon and eventually, the real deal, the 50$ CC subscription. Just give Adobe a bit of time to work it out ...

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 09:49 UTC
In reply to:

Michael Uschold: For those of you wondering whether you want to get the CC version or upgrade, here are some numbers. This is most relevant for those who already own a desktop version of LR, like to upgrade regularly and cannot or do not want to pay for a PS desktop version.

LR5 came out June 9, 2013, which is 681 days (22.37 months) before LR6 came out. It was only 461 days or 15.14 from LR4 to LR5.

1. CC: LR + PS $9.99/month

2a. Desktop: LR5 to LR6 average cost was $3.53/month ($79 / 22.37)
2b: Desktop: LR4 to LR5 average cost was $5.21/month ($79 / 15.14)
2c: Deskt op: LR4 to LR6 average cost was $4.21/month ($158/ 37.52)

So if having PS is worth $5.78 or so per month ($9.99 - $4.21) and you like small monthly payments, it may be worth considering PS + LR CC.

I generally don't like subscription software, but these numbers kind of surprised me. I don't happen to need PS, but for those that do, price does not seem to be a significant deterant from getting PS + LR CC.

@TheDman
That would be correct if using your CC library is for fun rather by requirement. Or should I say keeping a home is for fun because you can always go homeless?

I reality, it is worse actually. You can buy a coffe, change a house and there are many to choose from. But you can't change once you are tied to CC catalog and PSD image formats and your skill set.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 09:34 UTC
In reply to:

Michael Uschold: For those of you wondering whether you want to get the CC version or upgrade, here are some numbers. This is most relevant for those who already own a desktop version of LR, like to upgrade regularly and cannot or do not want to pay for a PS desktop version.

LR5 came out June 9, 2013, which is 681 days (22.37 months) before LR6 came out. It was only 461 days or 15.14 from LR4 to LR5.

1. CC: LR + PS $9.99/month

2a. Desktop: LR5 to LR6 average cost was $3.53/month ($79 / 22.37)
2b: Desktop: LR4 to LR5 average cost was $5.21/month ($79 / 15.14)
2c: Deskt op: LR4 to LR6 average cost was $4.21/month ($158/ 37.52)

So if having PS is worth $5.78 or so per month ($9.99 - $4.21) and you like small monthly payments, it may be worth considering PS + LR CC.

I generally don't like subscription software, but these numbers kind of surprised me. I don't happen to need PS, but for those that do, price does not seem to be a significant deterant from getting PS + LR CC.

The problem isn't the current photography CC price (which is a current excepton within the CC universe btw).

The problem is that Adobe refuses to tell us which price to pay more than 36 months down the road (the max. period for prepaid business contracts).

That's like financing a house w/o knowing the interest rate for the majority of the financing period. Who outside the US does *that*?

Or in other words ... learn to recognize a trap if you see it ...

IMHO, getting CC to access PS is an option (with CS6 as the backup), but to go CC (with an entire image catalog) to access LR6 which has a perpetual license is plain stupid.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 23:14 UTC
Total: 395, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »