1Ds samples by Phil: too noisy, and crapy colors :(

Graham3 said:

Also the close up of the flowers against the dress has camera
motion blur in it. It's not sharp - but its not the cameras fault.
The little girl with backlight shows he shuda used a hand meter.
I'm sorry but these images show the limitations of the photographer
not the camera.

Click to expand...

I think the shots DO show the limitations of the camera. For example this is a 640 by 480 1:1 cropped portion of the wedding dress picture. Notice the noise? The blotches of red and green that you see? Sure the buttons show a bit of camera movement, but this noise is not caused by camera movement.



Here it is with an auto level/color adjustment to make the noise even more obvious!



I rest my case...

Sincerely, Bob the Printer

There's more dust in those 1Ds images than in the bag in my vacuum cleaner.

Bob the Printer88467 said:

Click to expand...

So who sez here, that they aren't noisy?

The wedding dress photo was shot at ISO 500. You are also looking at a 100% crop. If you were to print that photo at a resolution of 72 pixels per inch you would have a photo more than 50 inches tall. I dare you to show me a shot taken with 35mm ISO 400 film and magnified to that size that does not contain considerably more noise.

Igor R. said:

Canon's samples was much better, looks like new EOS is only for
good light.

Click to expand...

I guess you'll just have to stick with film for another 20 years. Too bad.

--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

That would be tons noiser than this as the objective tests will bear out. In fact, hmmmmm - ISO 500, seems like some cameras don't even go that high.

This is an amazingly silly thread. Those shots are great. Same low noise as the D60/D30 but lots more resolution which makes effective noise by the time the image gets to the paper even less.

MichaelK said:

The wedding dress photo was shot at ISO 500. You are also looking
at a 100% crop. If you were to print that photo at a resolution of
72 pixels per inch you would have a photo more than 50 inches tall.
I dare you to show me a shot taken with 35mm ISO 400 film and
magnified to that size that does not contain considerably more
noise.

Click to expand...

Right on MichaelK

(the comments about seeing green are the funniest though. this is a mental game to say that the bayer sensor will skew pictures green. somehow this thread is about sensor technology and not about visible results.)

--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

Igor R. said:

Igor R. said:

Hey Igor...you get off on the stuff? How much do you make a year
and what is your net worth?

Click to expand...

I'm not asking, how much does he earn, I'm just asking if the web
site can give enough money, for not having another job.

Click to expand...

For your information one can be quite curious about another's profession without it having anything to do with money. I love finding out how things work. I just recently asked a taxi driver how his profession works, what happens to the money I give him, the unwritten rules, etc.

This is no tom-foolery, this is no super/infer iority complex. This is simple interest in the world. And if he is curious he, in my mind, may ask these types of questions. I know that for myself, no matter what profession I am in, no matter how much money I make, no matter how much value is attached to what I do, I would not mind being asked nor answering legitimate questions.

but that's just me.

--
Brett

http://qlink.queensu.ca/~9bdb3

It is incredible how so many people can constantly misread speed to mean ease. This is certainly most common where photography is concerned. However, simply because anyone can buy a camera, shutter away, and then with a slightly prejudiced eye justify the product does not validate the achievement. Shooting a target with a rifle is accomplished with similar speed and yet because the results are so objective no one suggests that marksmanship is easy.
-Navidson Record, 419

Igor R. said:

Canon's samples was much better, looks like new EOS is only for
good light.

Click to expand...

Yawn!

John – You have been posting on and on about Sigma noise – but I thought Your final statement on noise in the new Sigma samples was something like GREAT no noise anymore! I think You have to make up Your mind about this noise thing of Yours.

Regards
Zettlers

There is still noise especially in the shadows just not as bad as it was. The new 1Ds samples are less noisy than the SD9 pics. Also, when the official tests are done, you'll see the noise at 400 on the SD9 won't even be close to the noise on the 1Ds at ISO 400. When the SD9 pics were not over sharpened their noise was much better than the first samples that were put up to the point where I don't think noise at ISO 100 would be a problem. But being stuck on ISO 100 is going to be a problem.

I'm still very impressed with the quality of the shots on the SD9.

There is an interesting phenomena going on here. You have 2 camps here. You have people that have already owned and worked with DSLR's evaluating the SD9 and great shots but seeing issues that might preclude it from consideration at this first release juncture. Then you have other people that either still shoot film or have Minolta or Fuji or Sony digacams making completely illogical statements from a lack of experience like if a camera is fast that doesn't make it good, or bayer is dead no matter how many pixels are thrown at it, or since bayer is a guess it can't be good etc etc etc. You'll find the people saying this are from the 2nd camp in most cases and are just speaking from mental game playing and no experience. You'll see people posting up an SD9 shot with no USM and a D60 shot with no USM when the D60 shot requires a slight USM in a normal processing workflow. I am much more interested in the final product and the flexibility of use of the product than the underlying technolgy. If the SD9 can take super shots at ISO 100 that's fine. If it takes a 14.1 mp bayer to exceed the SD9 than that's fine too. The actual crossover point of the two technologies has still not been objectively determined. People say between 50% and 300% resolution advantage for the X3 over Bayer. That's quite a spread of opinion.

I do a lot of available light shooting. I had an E10 that had a top ISO of 320. I went to the D30 with a top ISO of 1600 (though that wasn't very useable). I now have the D60 which has the same noise characteristics of the D30 but much lower practical noise by the time you print because of the higher resolution. The SD9 still has pretty stong noise in the shadows and the ISO limit of 400. Since it's at the very nearly the same price point as a D60 this makes it a hard camera to consider for an available light shooter like me.

There are also odd edge effects in the SD9 pictures in high contrast areas with completly non-present and bright colors that some are attributing to lens CA and others to low level chip crosstalk. The variety of the edge effects suggests to me some processing method problem that might be worked out. It's not very visible in most cases but it's there. (look at the ball item jutting up from the boat or the horizontal ridges on the boat - there are all sorts of color artifacts that aren't on the boat itself)

So for me the jury is still out. I like how the technology looks. I see the two camps clearly identified based on people's experience either loving or being realistic about this product. At just a few hundred between a SD9 vs a D60 I'm would wait until you see objective samples in Phil's or others tests before making final decisions.

Now when Minolta comes out with their full-frame 3rd generation low noise high ISO F3 then Minolta will take over the market. Its just interesting seeing all the people that don't shoot with DSLR's currently not seeing any issues at all with the SD9 when these issues are readily apparent to people with a range of DSLR's and use in their background.

zettlers said:

John – You have been posting on and on about Sigma noise – but I
thought Your final statement on noise in the new Sigma samples was
something like GREAT no noise anymore! I think You have to make up
Your mind about this noise thing of Yours.

Regards
Zettlers

Click to expand...

--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

: ) may I quote You on this from the Sigma forum?

»I have just rechecked Phil's reposted samples. The mid-tone noise is basically gone.

This is great news. It also explains how can noise only be in the mid-tones and not in dark or lighter areas.

Phil - what did you change in the processing stream? What should I avoid when I get my camera?
Where can I pre-order one?

John Mason - Lafayette, IN «

John:

Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful post. I really want to buy a dslr
but have not found the right camera. At this point, I feel the Fuji
S-2 produces the best images. I have tried the D-100 and don't like it as
well and prefer the S-2 over the D-60 - just my preference from actual images
taken by all three.

Now - finally - comes the Sigma/Foveon SD-9. There are some things that I like

about it and things I do not like. The color saturation is nice but low level noise
is too high. The price is also higher than I would have expected.

The Canon 1DS is way too expensive and will probably come down fast. Also
do not like the noise in the images for a camera in this price range.

Finally there is the Kodak - sounds great on paper - although very expensive for my budget. The big question is how far away is the actual camera - are we talking before Christmas this year or some time next year. The Fuji is very good, cheaper and available now.

Still - this is a very exciting time for digital cameras but I need to be careful since I cannot afford to buy a high end camera and have the value drop in half in a few months.

Ed

John Mason said:

I'm still very impressed with the quality of the shots on the SD9.

There is an interesting phenomena going on here. You have 2 camps
here. You have people that have already owned and worked with
DSLR's evaluating the SD9 and great shots but seeing issues that
might preclude it from consideration at this first release
juncture. Then you have other people that either still shoot film
or have Minolta or Fuji or Sony digacams making completely
illogical statements from a lack of experience like if a camera is
fast that doesn't make it good, or bayer is dead no matter how many
pixels are thrown at it, or since bayer is a guess it can't be good
etc etc etc. You'll find the people saying this are from the 2nd
camp in most cases and are just speaking from mental game playing
and no experience. You'll see people posting up an SD9 shot with
no USM and a D60 shot with no USM when the D60 shot requires a
slight USM in a normal processing workflow. I am much more
interested in the final product and the flexibility of use of the
product than the underlying technolgy. If the SD9 can take super
shots at ISO 100 that's fine. If it takes a 14.1 mp bayer to
exceed the SD9 than that's fine too. The actual crossover point of
the two technologies has still not been objectively determined.
People say between 50% and 300% resolution advantage for the X3
over Bayer. That's quite a spread of opinion.

I do a lot of available light shooting. I had an E10 that had a
top ISO of 320. I went to the D30 with a top ISO of 1600 (though
that wasn't very useable). I now have the D60 which has the same
noise characteristics of the D30 but much lower practical noise by
the time you print because of the higher resolution. The SD9 still
has pretty stong noise in the shadows and the ISO limit of 400.
Since it's at the very nearly the same price point as a D60 this
makes it a hard camera to consider for an available light shooter
like me.

There are also odd edge effects in the SD9 pictures in high
contrast areas with completly non-present and bright colors that
some are attributing to lens CA and others to low level chip
crosstalk. The variety of the edge effects suggests to me some
processing method problem that might be worked out. It's not very
visible in most cases but it's there. (look at the ball item
jutting up from the boat or the horizontal ridges on the boat -
there are all sorts of color artifacts that aren't on the boat
itself)

So for me the jury is still out. I like how the technology looks.
I see the two camps clearly identified based on people's experience
either loving or being realistic about this product. At just a few
hundred between a SD9 vs a D60 I'm would wait until you see
objective samples in Phil's or others tests before making final
decisions.

Now when Minolta comes out with their full-frame 3rd generation low
noise high ISO F3 then Minolta will take over the market. Its just
interesting seeing all the people that don't shoot with DSLR's
currently not seeing any issues at all with the SD9 when these
issues are readily apparent to people with a range of DSLR's and
use in their background.

zettlers said:

John – You have been posting on and on about Sigma noise – but I
thought Your final statement on noise in the new Sigma samples was
something like GREAT no noise anymore! I think You have to make up
Your mind about this noise thing of Yours.

Regards
Zettlers

Click to expand...

--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

Click to expand...

i agree about the prejustice. but come on. who the hell shoots under consistant and controled situations? a $10,000 camera should be able to produce under ANY situation. i think the images were really flat and lack contrast. but who knows the magic that can be had with photoshop.

so i say yes, the images arent impressive out of the camera but...
no one will print any picture without it first making its way through photoshop.

i think it will be a fine camera for the elite that can afford it.

eric

i ass

DMillier said:

It's interesting to see the first samples from a new camera but a
proper evaluation can only be done under consistent, controlled
conditions. Wait for the full reviews come out before making your
mind up about any of these new cameras. It's called science not
wishful thinking...

Igor R. said:

Canon's samples was much better, looks like new EOS is only for
good light.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

thats only 6?

Graham3 said:

"Good" is not in the list of the 7 qualities of light.
That being - contrast,unevenness,colour,intensity,direction and
quality.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, such is the pace of progress in this field that you just have to accept that massive develuation is all part of the game..

Edward Woods said:

Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful post. I really want to buy
a dslr
but have not found the right camera. At this point, I feel the Fuji
S-2 produces the best images. I have tried the D-100 and don't
like it as
well and prefer the S-2 over the D-60 - just my preference from
actual images
taken by all three.

Now - finally - comes the Sigma/Foveon SD-9. There are some things
that I like
about it and things I do not like. The color saturation is nice
but low level noise
is too high. The price is also higher than I would have expected.

The Canon 1DS is way too expensive and will probably come down
fast. Also
do not like the noise in the images for a camera in this price range.

Finally there is the Kodak - sounds great on paper - although very
expensive for my budget. The big question is how far away is the
actual camera - are we talking before Christmas this year or some
time next year. The Fuji is very good, cheaper and available now.

Still - this is a very exciting time for digital cameras but I need
to be careful since I cannot afford to buy a high end camera and
have the value drop in half in a few months.

Ed

John Mason said:

I'm still very impressed with the quality of the shots on the SD9.

There is an interesting phenomena going on here. You have 2 camps
here. You have people that have already owned and worked with
DSLR's evaluating the SD9 and great shots but seeing issues that
might preclude it from consideration at this first release
juncture. Then you have other people that either still shoot film
or have Minolta or Fuji or Sony digacams making completely
illogical statements from a lack of experience like if a camera is
fast that doesn't make it good, or bayer is dead no matter how many
pixels are thrown at it, or since bayer is a guess it can't be good
etc etc etc. You'll find the people saying this are from the 2nd
camp in most cases and are just speaking from mental game playing
and no experience. You'll see people posting up an SD9 shot with
no USM and a D60 shot with no USM when the D60 shot requires a
slight USM in a normal processing workflow. I am much more
interested in the final product and the flexibility of use of the
product than the underlying technolgy. If the SD9 can take super
shots at ISO 100 that's fine. If it takes a 14.1 mp bayer to
exceed the SD9 than that's fine too. The actual crossover point of
the two technologies has still not been objectively determined.
People say between 50% and 300% resolution advantage for the X3
over Bayer. That's quite a spread of opinion.

I do a lot of available light shooting. I had an E10 that had a
top ISO of 320. I went to the D30 with a top ISO of 1600 (though
that wasn't very useable). I now have the D60 which has the same
noise characteristics of the D30 but much lower practical noise by
the time you print because of the higher resolution. The SD9 still
has pretty stong noise in the shadows and the ISO limit of 400.
Since it's at the very nearly the same price point as a D60 this
makes it a hard camera to consider for an available light shooter
like me.

There are also odd edge effects in the SD9 pictures in high
contrast areas with completly non-present and bright colors that
some are attributing to lens CA and others to low level chip
crosstalk. The variety of the edge effects suggests to me some
processing method problem that might be worked out. It's not very
visible in most cases but it's there. (look at the ball item
jutting up from the boat or the horizontal ridges on the boat -
there are all sorts of color artifacts that aren't on the boat
itself)

So for me the jury is still out. I like how the technology looks.
I see the two camps clearly identified based on people's experience
either loving or being realistic about this product. At just a few
hundred between a SD9 vs a D60 I'm would wait until you see
objective samples in Phil's or others tests before making final
decisions.

Now when Minolta comes out with their full-frame 3rd generation low
noise high ISO F3 then Minolta will take over the market. Its just
interesting seeing all the people that don't shoot with DSLR's
currently not seeing any issues at all with the SD9 when these
issues are readily apparent to people with a range of DSLR's and
use in their background.

zettlers said:

John – You have been posting on and on about Sigma noise – but I
thought Your final statement on noise in the new Sigma samples was
something like GREAT no noise anymore! I think You have to make up
Your mind about this noise thing of Yours.

Regards
Zettlers

Click to expand...

--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

I have added this paragraph after I initially annotated your comments:

After I added my comments below I realised there is clearly a
misunderstanding. My comments about light are related to physical
features of light sources that make sense in terms of
electromagnetic theory.

Your 7 qualities of light as you express them are obviously
something else as some of them don't really have a physical,
scientific meaning.

You make it sound as if they were a well recognised list. Can you
explain the origin of that particular terminology?

This makes no sense in terms of the physics of light. Light has a
colour (wavelength/frequency), intensity (amplitude), polarisation
(angle of plane vibration). It also has a source so it will have a
direction of travel. The size of the light source greatly effects
this as point sources have a single well defined direction whilst
diffuse sources don't.

Graham3 said:

But - academically - as I said - there are 7 and only 7 possible
qualities of light.

Click to expand...

I just don't agree with this statement - you would never get a
physicist to accept that "quality" is a physically measureable
term. The only "quality" I can think of is Q the measure of
resonance and perhaps the "quality" or "timbre" in music which is
basically about the mix of harmonics in sound.

"quality" simply has no technical meaning to me in this context. It
sounds more like a personal subjective term. What physical units is
quality measured in?

DavidMillier said:

The last one I mentioned is #7 = quality. Yes - that is correct -
quality.

Click to expand...

OK

DavidMillier said:

Yes - intensity is brightness.

Click to expand...

No, size of the source is related only to the direction of the light

DavidMillier said:

But size of source is one of the aspects of quality.

Click to expand...

Distance has nothing to do with "quality" it simply influences
intensity (inverse square law)

DavidMillier said:

Distance of source from subject in another.

Click to expand...

Contrast is a very ambiguous term. It is oftemn defined as the
ratio between the intensity of the darkest and lightest parts of a
scene so it applies to light reflected back from a subject not to
the light source itself. A light source cannot have contrast,
rather the subject it illuminates manifests contrast.

By Introducing additional lights or reflectors you change the
character of the reflected light bouncing back from the subject but
you are no longer discussing the "qualities" of a light source but
of the subject lit by a combination of multiple light sources.

DavidMillier said:

Contrast which is not soley determined by source characteristics is
how much light gets into areas that are not directly exposed to the
main source. That can be altered with reflectors or additional
lights.

Click to expand...

You still haven't explained "quality" - you make it sound like a
compound of several factors which means it is not a fundamental
characteristic of light at all...

DavidMillier said:

So Contrast and Quality are two distinctly different
qualities ( or aspects if you prefer )of light.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

DavidMillier said:

Direction is simply direction. No explanation needed.

Click to expand...

Colour is not straight forward at all. Monochromatic (laser) light
has a fixed frequency/wavelength which allows it to be precisely
defined along the visible spectrum.

All other light sources are a mix of frequencies and how this
defines colour is very much tied up in the operation of the eye.

The sensation of Yellow for instance can be induced by seeing
yellow monochromatic light or a mix of blue and green light...same
sensation but different physical light sources.

DavidMillier said:

Colour is the colour temperature of the light. Pretty straightforward.

Click to expand...

Polarisation is a fundamental physical property of light and thus
absolutely defines a characteristic of light. It has nothing to
with photgrapher filters - starlight can be polarised by magnetic
fields etc. Polarisation is so fundamental you can modulate it to
carry signals...

DavidMillier said:

I suppose that polarization could be added as an 8th quality/aspect
of light if it's applied before it gets to the suject ( at the
light source ).

Click to expand...

Evenness means absolutely nothing - it is not a physical property
of light like frequency, wavelength,intensity, polarisation etc is
it is again a property of light reflected from a surface not a
characteristic of a light source itself.

DavidMillier said:

Your list fails to note the very important characteristics of eveness.

I hope this info is helpfull.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Only a fool would argue with a know nothing that is trying to look like a know something. Your attempts to look educated about light are quite transparent.

This is typical "net" know nothing blabber - I mean all that blabber about the physics of light. Give me a break.
Goodbye.

Graham3 said:

DMillier said:

I have added this paragraph after I initially annotated your comments:

After I added my comments below I realised there is clearly a
misunderstanding. My comments about light are related to physical
features of light sources that make sense in terms of
electromagnetic theory.

Your 7 qualities of light as you express them are obviously
something else as some of them don't really have a physical,
scientific meaning.

You make it sound as if they were a well recognised list. Can you
explain the origin of that particular terminology?

This makes no sense in terms of the physics of light. Light has a
colour (wavelength/frequency), intensity (amplitude), polarisation
(angle of plane vibration). It also has a source so it will have a
direction of travel. The size of the light source greatly effects
this as point sources have a single well defined direction whilst
diffuse sources don't.

Graham3 said:

But - academically - as I said - there are 7 and only 7 possible
qualities of light.

Click to expand...

I just don't agree with this statement - you would never get a
physicist to accept that "quality" is a physically measureable
term. The only "quality" I can think of is Q the measure of
resonance and perhaps the "quality" or "timbre" in music which is
basically about the mix of harmonics in sound.

"quality" simply has no technical meaning to me in this context. It
sounds more like a personal subjective term. What physical units is
quality measured in?

Graham3 said:

The last one I mentioned is #7 = quality. Yes - that is correct -
quality.

Click to expand...

OK

Graham3 said:

Yes - intensity is brightness.

Click to expand...

No, size of the source is related only to the direction of the light

Graham3 said:

But size of source is one of the aspects of quality.

Click to expand...

Distance has nothing to do with "quality" it simply influences
intensity (inverse square law)

Graham3 said:

Distance of source from subject in another.

Click to expand...

Contrast is a very ambiguous term. It is oftemn defined as the
ratio between the intensity of the darkest and lightest parts of a
scene so it applies to light reflected back from a subject not to
the light source itself. A light source cannot have contrast,
rather the subject it illuminates manifests contrast.

By Introducing additional lights or reflectors you change the
character of the reflected light bouncing back from the subject but
you are no longer discussing the "qualities" of a light source but
of the subject lit by a combination of multiple light sources.

Graham3 said:

Contrast which is not soley determined by source characteristics is
how much light gets into areas that are not directly exposed to the
main source. That can be altered with reflectors or additional
lights.

Click to expand...

You still haven't explained "quality" - you make it sound like a
compound of several factors which means it is not a fundamental
characteristic of light at all...

Graham3 said:

So Contrast and Quality are two distinctly different
qualities ( or aspects if you prefer )of light.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Graham3 said:

Direction is simply direction. No explanation needed.

Click to expand...

Colour is not straight forward at all. Monochromatic (laser) light
has a fixed frequency/wavelength which allows it to be precisely
defined along the visible spectrum.

All other light sources are a mix of frequencies and how this
defines colour is very much tied up in the operation of the eye.

The sensation of Yellow for instance can be induced by seeing
yellow monochromatic light or a mix of blue and green light...same
sensation but different physical light sources.

Graham3 said:

Colour is the colour temperature of the light. Pretty straightforward.

Click to expand...

Polarisation is a fundamental physical property of light and thus
absolutely defines a characteristic of light. It has nothing to
with photgrapher filters - starlight can be polarised by magnetic
fields etc. Polarisation is so fundamental you can modulate it to
carry signals...

Graham3 said:

I suppose that polarization could be added as an 8th quality/aspect
of light if it's applied before it gets to the suject ( at the
light source ).

Click to expand...

Evenness means absolutely nothing - it is not a physical property
of light like frequency, wavelength,intensity, polarisation etc is
it is again a property of light reflected from a surface not a
characteristic of a light source itself.

Graham3 said:

Your list fails to note the very important characteristics of eveness.

I hope this info is helpfull.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Only a fool would argue with a know nothing that is trying to look
like a know something. Your attempts to look educated about light
are quite transparent.
This is typical "net" know nothing blabber - I mean all that
blabber about the physics of light. Give me a break.
Goodbye.

Click to expand...

Rather than get dragged into a ridiculous debate about the physics of light OMG - I will restate my original point which is.........

If the photographer was more capable of taking good photos we might be able to see exactly what the camera was capable of producing.
Only 2 good photos out of 12. Pro standards are 2 good out of 3.

Lets get a pro to take sample images and then we can really talk about evaluating this camera.
But I do thank him for at least providing us with something to go on.

Member said:

Member said:

Canon's samples was much better, looks like new EOS is only for
good light.

Click to expand...

I guess you'll just have to stick with film for another 20 years.
Too bad.

Click to expand...

Definitely not for 20 years, but untill there will be atleast 20 megapixel camera, nad will be good, if it will be X3!

And that agrees with what I just posted. At ISO 100 the mid-tone noise is not a problem any more. However, after that post I noted in another post that there is still noise in the red areas for some reason. Also there is increased noise as the ISO goes up. This limits this cameras application for available light photography indoors compared to what I'm used to.

It just based on the first post of pictures I didn't think they were all that great because of the noise and that is not an issue anymore given ISO 100 for practical printing purposes. But I'm also realizing that ISO 100 is not where one shoots indoors unless one uses flash.

I must say I'm really on the fence here. I love the look of the SD9 shots. There is still a noise issue just not as bad as it looked at first. I don't really know what the higer ISO noise issues will be but the noise that still persists and that the sharpening brought out will be a limiting factor.

My interest now is where is the practical resolution equivilant at. Here is the link for a very fascinating discussion on this:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=3489066

For now the noise crown is still in the hands of the D60 and not the SD9 especially at higher ISO's.

zettlers said:

: ) may I quote You on this from the Sigma forum?

»I have just rechecked Phil's reposted samples. The mid-tone noise
is basically gone.

This is great news. It also explains how can noise only be in the
mid-tones and not in dark or lighter areas.

Phil - what did you change in the processing stream? What should I
avoid when I get my camera?
Where can I pre-order one?

John Mason - Lafayette, IN «

Click to expand...

--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

Graham

I'm hurt, I really am. You made the initial statement about the the 7 so called academic qualities of light, not me. You also stated very forcefully that your 7 aspects were the only ones. You were also wrong.

I started off by refuting the points perhaps rather forcefully. I subsequently realised that we were clearly discussing the issue in different contexts which is why I added the later apology at the top of the post so you wouldn't take it in the wrong spirit. Clearly you have and clearly you feel rudeness is the way to progress.

Oh and By the way I do have a degree level qualification in astronomy and physics so I feel as reasonably educated as the next net know nothing. What's your excuse?

Graham3 said:

DMillier said:

I have added this paragraph after I initially annotated your comments:

After I added my comments below I realised there is clearly a
misunderstanding. My comments about light are related to physical
features of light sources that make sense in terms of
electromagnetic theory.

Your 7 qualities of light as you express them are obviously
something else as some of them don't really have a physical,
scientific meaning.

You make it sound as if they were a well recognised list. Can you
explain the origin of that particular terminology?

This makes no sense in terms of the physics of light. Light has a
colour (wavelength/frequency), intensity (amplitude), polarisation
(angle of plane vibration). It also has a source so it will have a
direction of travel. The size of the light source greatly effects
this as point sources have a single well defined direction whilst
diffuse sources don't.

Graham3 said:

But - academically - as I said - there are 7 and only 7 possible
qualities of light.

Click to expand...

I just don't agree with this statement - you would never get a
physicist to accept that "quality" is a physically measureable
term. The only "quality" I can think of is Q the measure of
resonance and perhaps the "quality" or "timbre" in music which is
basically about the mix of harmonics in sound.

"quality" simply has no technical meaning to me in this context. It
sounds more like a personal subjective term. What physical units is
quality measured in?

Graham3 said:

The last one I mentioned is #7 = quality. Yes - that is correct -
quality.

Click to expand...

OK

Graham3 said:

Yes - intensity is brightness.

Click to expand...

No, size of the source is related only to the direction of the light

Graham3 said:

But size of source is one of the aspects of quality.

Click to expand...

Distance has nothing to do with "quality" it simply influences
intensity (inverse square law)

Graham3 said:

Distance of source from subject in another.

Click to expand...

Contrast is a very ambiguous term. It is oftemn defined as the
ratio between the intensity of the darkest and lightest parts of a
scene so it applies to light reflected back from a subject not to
the light source itself. A light source cannot have contrast,
rather the subject it illuminates manifests contrast.

By Introducing additional lights or reflectors you change the
character of the reflected light bouncing back from the subject but
you are no longer discussing the "qualities" of a light source but
of the subject lit by a combination of multiple light sources.

Graham3 said:

Contrast which is not soley determined by source characteristics is
how much light gets into areas that are not directly exposed to the
main source. That can be altered with reflectors or additional
lights.

Click to expand...

You still haven't explained "quality" - you make it sound like a
compound of several factors which means it is not a fundamental
characteristic of light at all...

Graham3 said:

So Contrast and Quality are two distinctly different
qualities ( or aspects if you prefer )of light.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Graham3 said:

Direction is simply direction. No explanation needed.

Click to expand...

Colour is not straight forward at all. Monochromatic (laser) light
has a fixed frequency/wavelength which allows it to be precisely
defined along the visible spectrum.

All other light sources are a mix of frequencies and how this
defines colour is very much tied up in the operation of the eye.

The sensation of Yellow for instance can be induced by seeing
yellow monochromatic light or a mix of blue and green light...same
sensation but different physical light sources.

Graham3 said:

Colour is the colour temperature of the light. Pretty straightforward.

Click to expand...

Polarisation is a fundamental physical property of light and thus
absolutely defines a characteristic of light. It has nothing to
with photgrapher filters - starlight can be polarised by magnetic
fields etc. Polarisation is so fundamental you can modulate it to
carry signals...

Graham3 said:

I suppose that polarization could be added as an 8th quality/aspect
of light if it's applied before it gets to the suject ( at the
light source ).

Click to expand...

Evenness means absolutely nothing - it is not a physical property
of light like frequency, wavelength,intensity, polarisation etc is
it is again a property of light reflected from a surface not a
characteristic of a light source itself.

Graham3 said:

Your list fails to note the very important characteristics of eveness.

I hope this info is helpfull.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Only a fool would argue with a know nothing that is trying to look
like a know something. Your attempts to look educated about light
are quite transparent.
This is typical "net" know nothing blabber - I mean all that
blabber about the physics of light. Give me a break.
Goodbye.

Click to expand...