PIX 2015
vadims

vadims

Lives in Russian Federation Moscow, Russian Federation
Joined on Mar 10, 2006
About me:

Canon 5D Mk2, Sony RX100 Mk2, Tuscen TCH 5.0 ICE (cooled CCD), lots of older cameras.
Canon 16-35/2.8L II, 24-105/4L, 70-300/4.5-5.6 DO, 50/1.4, 100/2.8 Macro, Canon 500D and lots of filters and extension tubes, SLICK Pro 400DX tripod, Canon 430EX and Metz 28AF-3C speedlights, Rekam HALO-Pro 1000 Kit MOD3.1 and other professional lighting equipment.

Comments

Total: 213, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

mike earussi: I've yet to figure out why Sony would go to all the trouble and expense of designing a high quality camera only to ruin the output with lossy compression.

And as for not encountering it for years, that's BS as that would mean they're not shooting at night or indoors, specifically what the new BSI chip is designed for.

All Sony had to do was include an opt out selection and this would not be a problem. But I do so much of my shooting at night that right now this camera would be worthless to me.

> ruin the output with lossy compression

So, in some photogs' heads the output is not just "compromised" or something, it's "ruined" already. Good grief...

I am surprised there are no calls to lynch Sony executives, literally. Although, the article was published only 3 days ago, so not all hope is lost yet.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 5, 2015 at 10:57 UTC
In reply to:

Francis Sawyer: Too little, too late, Epson. I abandoned your crap years ago after yet another printer failed because of unclearable clogs. Yeah, nice $400 printer that's useless because of a permanently clogged head.

Moved on to a Canon printer and refillable cartridges.

My experience as well, unfortunately.

It was not frequent clogging per se that turned me off, it was that self-cleaning function insisted on pouring ink from all cartridges, even though nozzles of only one color were clogged.

I did not know whether that was Epson's greed, or just bad design, and I did not care -- just switched to HP and never looked back.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 5, 2015 at 05:04 UTC
In reply to:

fedway: Is there anyone here that reads Japanese or is familiar with the Japanese photography community? There seems to be enough negative feedback over this issue at least as far as the English speaking pro and prosumer community is concerned that one would think that Sony corporate is getting enough heat to do something about it. However, if the Japanese speaking photography community is less concerned about it, then it may not get the attention DPR readers assume it will get from all the energy they are devoting to it.

I also wonder how many Catholics are concerned with these terrible Sony practices? If not enough, there may not be enough prayers for... err, speedy recovery.

Somebody should hurry up and alert the Pope!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 5, 2015 at 03:04 UTC
On BSI Boss? Sony Alpha 7R II added to studio scene article (456 comments in total)
In reply to:

maljo@inreach.com: Raw: D810 vs A7R2 vs 5DR:
I'd pick the Nikon for sharpness, noise, resolution, color.
All good. Very subjective.

> Good lenses have absolutely zero to do with color

True -- in a sense that they do not introduce any color casts (and just provide faithful reproduction). But not-so-good lenses may do so. It can't be denied that camera processing has biggest impact (that's why we talk about "Canon skin tones" and such) but, sadly, the story does not end there.

I wish I could just run my time machine, return to that day long gone by when I tested Sigma 12-24 and provide you with samples I took, but my time machine is being repaired, and that can take a while (you surely know how is it with time machines...)

Meanwhile, you may want to have a look at this Sigma 12-24 review:
http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=37

which also talks about color cast that I observed.

Or you may want to just google for "sigma lens yellow color cast" and look elsewhere. Granted, some of the evidence is anecdotal, but that's internet for you -- lots of misleading info, rude people and jerks, etc...

Direct link | Posted on Sep 4, 2015 at 06:05 UTC
In reply to:

Nukunukoo: The problem of dividing an image in 16x16 segments is that on critical detail recovery, the artifacts will look exactly like a highly compressed JPEG. Using an overlapping Wavelet style of segmentation would have been better with very little hit in computing power. I still don't see why Sony's software engineers still suck in both imaging compression and User Interfaces.

Strictly speaking... It's even more different, because 16-pixel blocks represent either even or odd pixels from 32-pixel blocks in Sony cRAW.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 3, 2015 at 10:44 UTC
In reply to:

Nukunukoo: The problem of dividing an image in 16x16 segments is that on critical detail recovery, the artifacts will look exactly like a highly compressed JPEG. Using an overlapping Wavelet style of segmentation would have been better with very little hit in computing power. I still don't see why Sony's software engineers still suck in both imaging compression and User Interfaces.

> The problem of dividing an image in 16x16 segments

It's not 16x16 segments, it's 16-pixel strips in Sony cRAW. Whereas in JPEG, the MCU (minimum coded unit) is 16x16 pixels.

Quite a difference.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 3, 2015 at 10:31 UTC
In reply to:

Rod Laird: That is possible Frank C, but as an EE who in the past has dealt with attempting to cram signals through limited processing capacity, it seems to me unlikely. The DSP systems are already taking all the bits in - so they are all being massaged; it is just a question of what comes out the other end of the pipeline... I doubt reducing compression will increase processing load!

I also acknowledge that I have no basis of fact in terms of explicit information on the actual hardware and software implementation on which to base my conjecture!!!

I would also point to previous comments that note that nobody is expecting this to be a high frame rate sports shooter. Those that need such capabilities use the professional Nikon and Canon bodies that are designed with that end in mind. I suspect that the evolving A7R II, III or IV will take some time to supplant my (also evolving) high frame-rate Nikon bodies - if indeed it ever does.

> I doubt reducing compression will increase processing load

If you're talking about processing that is internal to an ASIC or CPU, then yes, you are correct.

But when it comes to transferring data to, say, RAW buffer or memory card, we're talking about 14 vs 8 difference, which is pretty massive for 42 mp images.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 2, 2015 at 23:22 UTC
In reply to:

ebjerke: But WHY? I have not seen anyone explain WHY Sony chooses to do this. What benefit is it to them or what benefit to they THINK it offers to continue to do this even though so many complain.

> if the compression is being done early in the pipeline in
> hardware then it may increase the RAW buffer capacity too.

That is pretty much a given.

I mean, even if compression happens at a later stage, I'd still fully expect RAW buffer to contain already compressed data.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 2, 2015 at 23:11 UTC

This nugget sums up about half of the comments in this massively amusing thread:

> I don't think compressing a raw file is about artistic expression as
> its a cost cutting measure or simply a matter of lazy programming.

And that comment got 9 likes as of the time of this writing!

WOW

Direct link | Posted on Sep 2, 2015 at 22:15 UTC as 146th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

rrccad: Personally Sony deserves a little more condemning on this issue, especially considering their fictitious marketing material which suggest "14 bit raw capture" and 14 bit tonality with out any mention of a compression scheme or loss-less compression.

from the A7R webpage on sony usa:

"Enhanced detail reproduction plus diffraction-reducing technology create more natural outlines and reduce blur from light points. Enjoy noise reduction plus 16-bit processing and 14-bit RAW output."

"16-bit processing + 14-bit RAW
16-bit image processing and 14-bit RAW output help preserve maximum detail and produce images of the highest quality with rich tonal gradations. The 14-bit RAW (Sony ARW) format ensures optimal quality for later image adjustment (via Image Data Converter or other software)."

all the alphas for instance have something akin to under specifications "RAW OUTPUT" as being 14 bit. with no mention of compression lossless or otherwise.

False advertising.

Yeah, burn them, burn them at the stake!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 2, 2015 at 22:06 UTC
In reply to:

luigibozi: Could somebody push Sony to explain technically (NOT marketing-ly) what are they doing with the bits from the sensor to the file delivered on the memory card?
It would save a lot of people's time having the available info in their tech specs.

> what are they doing with the bits

They are f*ing STEALING them, greedy bastards!!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 2, 2015 at 22:01 UTC
In reply to:

photomedium: boys and girls: tone down the rhetoric please, engineering is all about compromise. Sony has done more to improve digital photography in the past 5 years than all other brands put together. This issue has registered loud & clear on their radar and will be sorted out soon enough.
Meanwhile, imagine the world of photography without Sony, in barren canonland, squeezing the sweat out of overpriced underwear to survive...

> still waiting for a f.... button to switch off the display

... unlike us lucky [former] Canon users, who got Direct Print button on our 5D's working as MLU like, what, the very next day after the outcry started, if memory serves me... Hmm... well, does it?..

Direct link | Posted on Sep 2, 2015 at 21:51 UTC
In reply to:

breivogel: As is pointed out in the article, the stage 2 compression (a run length encoding process) is the one to create artifacts near high contrast edges. This is the part the worries me the most - it might well interact with USM and cause issues similar to Jpeg near edges (i.e. "mosquitos").

I think Sony sticks to compression mostly out of stubbornness and the need to save face. There is no excuse NOT to give the user the option of uncompressed RAW on any camera that offers RAW. Other than larger file sizes (and maybe slower writing). Let the user decide what they prefer. Sony could still offer compression as an option, like Nikon.

As to Sony not doing firmware updates, they do sometimes (like the improved CODEC in the RX10m1). Certainly anyone with A7xxx should complain to Sonny support asking for them to do an update.

I believe that DPR, by escalating attention to the issue, has done us a service and perhaps will get Sony to act.

> the stage 2 compression (a run length encoding process)

Run length encoding is not what you think it is. RLE is something completely irrelevant to the Sony compression:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run-length_encoding

Direct link | Posted on Sep 2, 2015 at 21:39 UTC

Really hope that when/if Sony implements lossless RAWs, they only introduce it as an option, because their current compression scheme not only provides significant benefits, but is also a non-issue for 99% of photographers. Or rather is a non-issue for 100% photographers 99.(9)% of the time.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 2, 2015 at 19:24 UTC as 174th comment
In reply to:

tom1234567: Sony profit comes first, customer last??

Do you realize how much effort (and money) went into R&D that resulted in these clever compression schemes? Do you realize that many aspects of shooting (such as continuous frame rate), and thus customers, really benefit from this compression?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 2, 2015 at 19:16 UTC
On BSI Boss? Sony Alpha 7R II added to studio scene article (456 comments in total)
In reply to:

maljo@inreach.com: Raw: D810 vs A7R2 vs 5DR:
I'd pick the Nikon for sharpness, noise, resolution, color.
All good. Very subjective.

@Rishi

Long ago, I tried Sigma 12-24 with original 5D, and Sigma produced so horrific yellow cast that to this day I cannot force myself to get a Sigma lens... I know their ART line is superb and everything, but that experience just keeps popping up in my head every time I think "Sigma".

Direct link | Posted on Sep 2, 2015 at 15:35 UTC
On BSI Boss? Sony Alpha 7R II added to studio scene article (456 comments in total)
In reply to:

danny006: The jpeg engine is really good in terms of retaining detail. The amount of detail preserved is amazing and I haven't found another camera that performs as well. The 5DS and D810 are left behind. But in flat areas with no detail there is too much smudging going on, a typical Sony problem and this must be solved.

Would agree.

Also note that A7RII's JPEGs are almost always smaller than those of cameras with smaller mp counts, which means very high quality compression indeed.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 1, 2015 at 22:10 UTC
On BSI Boss? Sony Alpha 7R II added to studio scene article (456 comments in total)
In reply to:

J A C S: Very similar at high ISO but slightly worse than the D750 and the A7S with better resolution. If you push it really hard, the A7S wins over those two with a lower magenta cast.

Please be sure to scale to D750 image size and then look at it again. Chances are, you'll get totally different result.

Here's ISO 51,200:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_a7rii&attr13_1=nikon_d750&attr13_2=canon_eos5dsr&attr13_3=sony_a6000&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=51200&attr16_1=51200&attr16_2=12800&attr16_3=25600&attr171_0=off&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=-0.3515700483091787&y=-1.0234234234234234

Frankly, I have hard time believing my eyes...

Direct link | Posted on Sep 1, 2015 at 14:55 UTC
On BSI Boss? Sony Alpha 7R II added to studio scene article (456 comments in total)
In reply to:

neil holmes: For jpegs, this looks better to me on most parts of the scene at ISO 102400 than the A7R at 25600 and the Canon at ISO12800 and better even than the A7s at 102400.
Never mind, the scene must have been stuck and while showing as ISO 102400 was really a much lower setting.
Retried and my world is back to normal....the A7s is still the camera for me....though anyone wanting to give me an A7Rii, well I wouldn't reject the gift.

> Retried and my world is back to normal....

Hmm... Not so sure about my world.

When I downsize it to A7S's 12Mb, A7RII's image still looks better to me. Simply stunning.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 1, 2015 at 14:45 UTC
In reply to:

Ramjager: Firstly the headline is completely inaccurate as the article clearly points out that the number of subconditions for which you place on this superior performance is so massive that perhaps a better title would be "DLSR AF performance is still superior to A7II except when using F2 lenses".
Feel free to glorify the poor Sony A7 all you like but please at least have the respect for those with some photographic experience to do it accurately..
Well bring your A7 and a 400mm lens and come take photos with me in the dark.
If your A7 can perform as well as a 1DX then you can change your title to A7II beats DSLR AF performance.
If not how about you write an article that current DSLR's in poor light combined with difficult weather beat mirrorless cameras..
http://www.vortexaviationphotography.com/Civil-Aviation-Photography/Anchorage/i-fgPSnPc/0/L/IMG_9352-2-L.jpg
http://www.vortexaviationphotography.com/Civil-Aviation-Photography/Los-Angeles-2013/i-FsQ26w4/1/XL/IMG_8962-XL.jpg

> the headline is completely inaccurate

Even though I disagree with Rishi et al. more often than not (on how they present their finding, not on what they find), I'd give them this one. The headline *is* pretty accurate IMO. As it says "*can* match or beat", not "matches or beats".

Besides, there is one other consideration that was not the focus of this particular article, and that's face/eye focus. Which DSLRs cannot do (not w/o giving up on speed completely, anyway).

I recently took a series of images in a dimly lit restaurant with a6000 and modest 20/2.8, and the ability to use face detection made a world of difference, especially if you take into account more accurate exposures (as the camera *knows* what exactly you are shooting). I remember when face detection was a half-asked gimmick; it's no longer. Can a DSLR match *that* (in low light or not)? No. To me, that ends the debate.

My IMHO, as always; and your mileage can vary.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2015 at 17:03 UTC
Total: 213, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »