texinwien

texinwien

Lives in Austria Vienna, Austria
Works as a Software Architect / Consultant
Joined on Apr 23, 2012
About me:

Started shooting OM-D E-M5 on April 28, 2012, after a ~4 year hiatus. Previously shot the Canon 300D, which I bought when it first came out.

Comments

Total: 42, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Will this technology also help with Dynamic range and noise ?

Indeed. The guy is obviously clueless about how to calculate SNR. Obvious case of the Dunning--Kruger effect: too clueless to realize his cluelessness.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 13, 2014 at 22:29 UTC
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Will this technology also help with Dynamic range and noise ?

Indeed, it does - downsizing increases DR and SNR. Again, you're simply mistaken, and you don't know what you're talking about, or how SNR is calculated. I linked it above. Go read it and spend some time trying to understand it.

The simple rule is that the SNR of an image due to photon shot noise is sqrt(N), where N is the number of photons captured.

Can't argue with the laws of physics...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 14:24 UTC
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Will this technology also help with Dynamic range and noise ?

I need to correct my previous post. "If we stitch or blend" should read "If we stitch and downsample or blend", and "and blending or stitching multiple exposures" should read "and blending or stitching and downsampling multiple exposures". I thought this would be clear from the context of the previous discussion, but re-reading suggests that it may not be.

The point is, if we combine multiple exposures, whether via stitching and downsizing or by blending, into a final image that is the same size as the original, individual captures, the resulting image will have higher SNR than any of the single captures.

That's just how SNR (due to photon shot noise) works.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 11:23 UTC
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Will this technology also help with Dynamic range and noise ?

Sorry, Bjorn, but you're just completely confused about how SNR works. I suggest you take it to the Photographic Science and Technology forum, where you may end up learning a few things.

If we capture X photons in one exposure, we will capture 4X photons in four exposures. If we stitch or blend these together, the SNR of the resulting image will be 1 stop better than any of the single exposures. That's simple physics.

I'm not confusing this with HDR, either, since I do both HDR, blending (of equal as opposed to bracketed exposures) and stitching.

The bottom line is that SNR goes up with the number of photons captured, and blending or stitching multiple exposures obviously and logically means that the final image will have the benefit of having been created from more photons than any single capture, which, by the laws of physics means the final image will have a higher SNR than any of the individual exposures.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 10:38 UTC
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Will this technology also help with Dynamic range and noise ?

Correction: "a blend of the four images will have the bedight of 4x as many photos as any of the single images, which will, in turn, give the blend a full so of improved SNR" SHOULD BE "a blend of the four images will have the benefit of 4x as many photons as any of the single images, which will, in turn, give the blend a full stop of improved SNR". Stupid autocorrect on my tablet.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 08:27 UTC
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Will this technology also help with Dynamic range and noise ?

Wrong Bjorn. Totally wrong. SNR increases in quadrature. That is, noise increases at the square root of the increase in the number of photons captured. SNR = sqrt(N), where N on the right side equals number of photons captured when discussing photon slot noise. Of course, if we take 4 images of the same scene with the same settings, a blend of the four images will have the bedight of 4x as many photos as any of the single images, which will, in turn, give the blend a full so of improved SNR, compared to any of the single frames. I use this technique with excellent results where bracketing isn't practical. A blend of 16 photos of the same scene with the same settings quadruples SNR / increases it by two stops (compared to any of the single frames). Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise , Examples: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54799810

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 08:07 UTC
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Will this technology also help with Dynamic range and noise ?

You're right, Dheorl and Terry Breedlove, and Bjorn is just plain wrong. It's obvious that he doesn't understand how SNR works.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 9, 2014 at 22:30 UTC
On Autumn's Last Light in the Sony A6000 challenge (1 comment in total)

Fantastic shot!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2014 at 16:07 UTC as 1st comment
On Olympus PEN E-PL7 First Impressions Review preview (496 comments in total)
In reply to:

G1Houston: Does it still show banding when the Panasonic 20/1.7 is used at high ISO? Could someone please check to see if they have finally go this issue under control?

AFAIK this is no longer a problem in the newer Olympus m43 models. It's an issue on the E-M5 and may be an issue on some of the other Oly m43 cameras that use the Sony sensor, but it's not an issue on the E-M1 (Panasonic sensor), and I'm pretty sure they've figured out how to avoid the issue on their more recent camera models. I certainly haven't heard any complaints about it on later m43 models.

(E-M5 & Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 owner, here)

Direct link | Posted on Nov 10, 2014 at 09:41 UTC
In reply to:

RDMPhotos: Well .... where are they ??

You might want to ask this gentleman:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54687383

He apparently has a Kowa 8.5mm lens.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 6, 2014 at 07:08 UTC
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1578 comments in total)
In reply to:

Timbukto: "When we tested the D800 and D800E we found that we had to go to great lengths to avoid mirror and shutter-induced vibration from reducing resolution at some shutter speeds. This is par for the course with such a high-resolution camera, and we've worked through the same issues on other DSLRs and interchangeable lens cameras (like the Sony A7R) since then."

Is this the first time we've heard about this? How come it seems like companies need to make improvements before issues are revealed...I feel like it should be the other way around, journalism should be revealing issues to be fixed beforehand. What are the great lengths needed to avoid mirror slap and shutter shake anyhow, would it be useful to know for anyone wanting to extract the most out of their pics? Forgive me if I you guys already went to great lengths explaining, perhaps I missed it.

Regarding "common knowledge," here are some excerpts from DPReview's (recently updated) Olympus E-P5 review:

<<We've found that when examining our images closely, many are visibly shaken, showing a distinct double-image which is almost perfectly vertically displaced (when the camera is in landscape orientation).
...
In our original review, we suggested that the root cause of this blurring might be simply that small, light cameras are naturally more susceptible to shake. However, the success of the '0 Sec Anti-Shock' mode suggests that instead it is mainly due to vibrations caused by the physical shutter closing then opening at the start of the exposure. We have removed our previous analysis of the problem, since it is an issue that can now be resolved by use of the latest firmware.>>

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-pen-e-p5/13

DPReview representatives argued against shutter shock being the cause of the blurring until Olympus released the firmware fix for the problem.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2014 at 06:46 UTC
On Busy hoopoe in the My Best Photo of the Week challenge (21 comments in total)

Fantastic!

Direct link | Posted on May 14, 2014 at 11:16 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

tanniewu: Waiting to have this update to my E-P5 and E-M5! Although, I didn't see it as much an issue to me... luckily perhaps :P

@Timur: That is standard software development practice (testing all functions with each new software version). The testing is often automated, at least a large part of it. If they've really got things set up nicely, the entire battery of tests is performed automatically, each time a small change is made to the software. Read about CI / Continuous Integration for more info...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 31, 2014 at 18:44 UTC
In reply to:

texinwien: It's been pointed out to DPReview staff on multiple occasions that the E-M1 studio samples with ISO set to less than 800 suffer from clear and undeniable shutter shock.

Perhaps DPreview will revisit those samples and prepare ISO 100 - ISO 400 studio samples that are not marred by shutter shock? Would be great...

There are ways other than EFCS to address shutter shock - avoiding the problem shutter speeds, for instance. I don't really care how they do it, but I think it's strange for them to use sample photos in their official comparison tool that do not actually showcase the full resolution of which the camera is capable.

See here for proof: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52603490

The shots at ISOs 100-400 (1/40 seconds - 1/160 seconds, right in the shutter speed danger zone) show CLEARLY less resolution than the one at ISO 800 (1/320 seconds - out of the SS danger zone).

Direct link | Posted on Mar 31, 2014 at 15:41 UTC

It's been pointed out to DPReview staff on multiple occasions that the E-M1 studio samples with ISO set to less than 800 suffer from clear and undeniable shutter shock.

Perhaps DPreview will revisit those samples and prepare ISO 100 - ISO 400 studio samples that are not marred by shutter shock? Would be great...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 31, 2014 at 15:00 UTC as 40th comment | 4 replies
On DPReview Gear of the Year Part 3: Olympus OM-D E-M1 article (396 comments in total)
In reply to:

Edd2013: I enjoyed reading all the comments on the Olympus OMD E M1. I believe there is a camera for everyone. In my case, I have a Nikon D7000, lens and flash. At age 77, they have become somewhat heavy to carry around. I purchased the M1 for it size and quality. I have been searching the Internet for examples of camera settings, with on luck. If someone could post their settings I would truly appreciated it. If my request is not appropriate on this site, I apologize

Edd, head over to DPReview's Micro Four-Thirds forum for tips, answers to questions and help setting things up: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/1041

Direct link | Posted on Dec 12, 2013 at 22:26 UTC
On Schloss Laudon photo in texinwien's photo gallery (2 comments in total)
In reply to:

AussieBarb: This is fantastic!

Thanks Barb! You might like this one, too: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9681102267/photos/2567629/schloss-laudon-2

That's the same castle, but the picture is a panorama stitched together from 6 photos for a total of 22 megapixels :)

Direct link | Posted on May 24, 2013 at 10:12 UTC
On User Guide: Getting the most out of the Olympus E-M5 article (262 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jim Coplan: Mysets and Fn2 button?

I would like to assign the Fn2 button to bring up the Mysets table (normally accessed by pressing Menu | [camera 1] | Mysets).

Is this possible?

Unfortunately, it is not. There's no quick way to get to MySets. You can set one button to enable one MySet while it's pressed, but that's it.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 18:21 UTC
On Adobe's Fujifilm X-Trans sensor processing tested article (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

backayonder: So the advice here is that for anyone who wants to take close up shots of Washinton Street signs or money is not to buy a Fuji. But for most other subject matter the Fuji will be fine.

I disagree, and am certainly not the only one. Many have described the X-Trans output as having a 'watercolor' look. When the X-Pro1 reviews and sample photos first started coming out, I heard speculation that Fuji was applying noise reduction to the RAW files. What some thought were signs of NR were actually X-Trans artifacts, and not only in close-up shots of Washington Street signs or money.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 27, 2013 at 09:20 UTC
On Adobe's Fujifilm X-Trans sensor processing tested article (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

micahmedia: For the full story open the resolution charts from Imaging Resource. The color star targets still look horrid.

This is still not ready for prime time.

Kudos to Adobe for taking up the challenge though! I'm curious if they can still take this further. Fuji would be foolish not to share some their secrets with them, but...well, I suspect they -are- foolish.

Ah, doesn't look great to me, comparing the color chart in the linked studio sample images. The new version is considerably less sharp and shows strange 'halos' at hard-edged color changes. See the two images at 100%, and take a look at the Kodak color chart.

Do yourself a favor and 'forget' which image is the new and which is the old, look both over, closely, and decide which one looks better. I chose the old version, hands down.

Seems there's still a way to go on this technology.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2013 at 15:45 UTC
Total: 42, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »