Reading mode: Light Dark

CP5K V1.7 - more differences

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vincent Bockaert
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
Thanks Vincent for taking the time to do this.

Honestly I do not like that the shadow areas got even darker. I thought that they were too dark before. :c( Looks like If one boosted the EV enough to bring the shadow detail out that the blowouts would be just as they were with the 1.6.

What were the settings on the camera for these shots? Were they both on contrast +1?

I don't see an improvement in metering from looking at these shots. Almost looks like they just changed the EV setting a bit. No?

Ken.
Vincent Bockaert said:
Some more differences between firmware 1.6 and 1.7 of the Coolpix
5000.
http://www.vincentbockaert.com/CP5K_Firmware17_2.asp

Vincent
http://www.VincentBockaert.com
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/ken_5
 
Hi Hariette,

yes, and unfortunately the one with the most purple fringing happens to me mine...

I just had a look at you samples, looks like typical coolpix noise to me, a bit on the high side with standard deviation in the red channel above 5. As expected, more noise as we lower the EV.

Thanx for the update :)
Vincent
http://www.VincentBockaert.com
Hariette said:
Interesting about the purple fringing, although as you said the
reason might be being two different cameras. You might be
interested to look at the post I've just posted here --->
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1007&message=3513401
Cheers Vincent :-)
Click to expand...
 
Hi Ken,

I agree with what you wrote. Given the limits of the coolpix dynamic range one has to compromise somewhere. The new "characteristics curve" addresses the complaints about the clipped highlights at the cost of some compromises elsewhere. You can more or less get back to 1.6 by adjusting the camera setting or some pixelroom adjustments or both. But I am eager to try out the raw mode because that gives you about two extra stops to play with and could greatly enhance dynamic range. Also, I if you adjusted your EV a little too much, you can correct that in raw mode without deteriorating your histogram.

All the shots were taken with contrast in Normal mode, sharpening low, and EV 0, unless indicated otherwise.

By the way, wonderful grashopper shots. Any editing done on those ?

kind regards
Vincent
http://www.VincentBockaert.com
Ken. said:
Thanks Vincent for taking the time to do this.

Honestly I do not like that the shadow areas got even darker. I
thought that they were too dark before. :c( Looks like If one
boosted the EV enough to bring the shadow detail out that the
blowouts would be just as they were with the 1.6.

What were the settings on the camera for these shots? Were they
both on contrast +1?

I don't see an improvement in metering from looking at these shots.
Almost looks like they just changed the EV setting a bit. No?

Ken.
Click to expand...
 
Vincent,

Is it possible that the difference in CA is due to difference in lens quality between camera with V1.6 & that with V1.7 you tested ?( I recently learned here that CA is a lens problem, not a software one). Have you tried -Saturation with V1.7 to see if CA is reduced?

Best regards
John
Vincent Bockaert said:
Hi Hariette,

yes, and unfortunately the one with the most purple fringing
happens to me mine...
I just had a look at you samples, looks like typical coolpix noise
to me, a bit on the high side with standard deviation in the red
channel above 5. As expected, more noise as we lower the EV.
Click to expand...
 
Hi John,

my feeling is that CA is mainly a lens issue indeed. Moreover, since 1.7 is less saturated than 1.6, CA should be less not more. Saturation reduction can reduce CA, but works better if applied localized and channel specific, something the camera cannot do.

kind regards
Vincent
http://www.VincentBockaert.com
John Lai said:
Is it possible that the difference in CA is due to difference in
lens quality between camera with V1.6 & that with V1.7 you tested
?( I recently learned here that CA is a lens problem, not a
software one). Have you tried -Saturation with V1.7 to see if CA
is reduced?

Best regards
John
Click to expand...
 
So it is probably a production thing. Some serial numbers must produce more CA than others? That would explain the horrible CA in Phil's samples? And I thought it was the London winter weather!!! lol
Vincent Bockaert said:
my feeling is that CA is mainly a lens issue indeed. Moreover,
since 1.7 is less saturated than 1.6, CA should be less not more.
Saturation reduction can reduce CA, but works better if applied
localized and channel specific, something the camera cannot do.

kind regards
Vincent
http://www.VincentBockaert.com
Member said:
Is it possible that the difference in CA is due to difference in
lens quality between camera with V1.6 & that with V1.7 you tested
?( I recently learned here that CA is a lens problem, not a
software one). Have you tried -Saturation with V1.7 to see if CA
is reduced?

Best regards
John
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
http://www.pbase.com/image/5510557/medium

I put a new picture converted from RAW. Interestingly I was expecting the saving of the RAW to be much longer, it is quite fast actually (someone else mentionned this in this forum)

The sky looks much better, doesn't it? But then again time of day, position of the sun, etc. are different.

Must be late in Singapore... :-) night
 
I haven't worked with raw. How does it give you another 2 stops?
Peter
Vincent Bockaert said:
I agree with what you wrote. Given the limits of the coolpix
dynamic range one has to compromise somewhere. The new
"characteristics curve" addresses the complaints about the clipped
highlights at the cost of some compromises elsewhere. You can more
or less get back to 1.6 by adjusting the camera setting or some
pixelroom adjustments or both. But I am eager to try out the raw
mode because that gives you about two extra stops to play with and
could greatly enhance dynamic range. Also, I if you adjusted your
EV a little too much, you can correct that in raw mode without
deteriorating your histogram.

All the shots were taken with contrast in Normal mode, sharpening
low, and EV 0, unless indicated otherwise.

By the way, wonderful grashopper shots. Any editing done on those ?

kind regards
Vincent
http://www.VincentBockaert.com
Ken. said:
Thanks Vincent for taking the time to do this.

Honestly I do not like that the shadow areas got even darker. I
thought that they were too dark before. :c( Looks like If one
boosted the EV enough to bring the shadow detail out that the
blowouts would be just as they were with the 1.6.

What were the settings on the camera for these shots? Were they
both on contrast +1?

I don't see an improvement in metering from looking at these shots.
Almost looks like they just changed the EV setting a bit. No?

Ken.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hi Peter,

the topic of another upcoming article, but in a nutshell, RAW contains the image information before in-camera processing. Based on your camera settings, the camera will process the image info and put a smaller range out of the total available range into the final image. With RAW you can do that processing on your PC instead with the Nikon software and process the image based on various combinations of settings you can choose. A bit like a RAW steak from the grocery store which allows you more flexibility in cooking it than one which is already cooked in the resaurant, but with the added benefit that unlike the steak, you can reprocess the RAW image over and over again until you get it right, without any quality loss.

kind regards
Vincent
http://www.VincentBockaert.com
peter konzuk said:
Vincent Bockaert said:
I agree with what you wrote. Given the limits of the coolpix
dynamic range one has to compromise somewhere. The new
"characteristics curve" addresses the complaints about the clipped
highlights at the cost of some compromises elsewhere. You can more
or less get back to 1.6 by adjusting the camera setting or some
pixelroom adjustments or both. But I am eager to try out the raw
mode because that gives you about two extra stops to play with and
could greatly enhance dynamic range. Also, I if you adjusted your
EV a little too much, you can correct that in raw mode without
deteriorating your histogram.

All the shots were taken with contrast in Normal mode, sharpening
low, and EV 0, unless indicated otherwise.

By the way, wonderful grashopper shots. Any editing done on those ?

kind regards
Vincent
http://www.VincentBockaert.com
Ken. said:
Thanks Vincent for taking the time to do this.

Honestly I do not like that the shadow areas got even darker. I
thought that they were too dark before. :c( Looks like If one
boosted the EV enough to bring the shadow detail out that the
blowouts would be just as they were with the 1.6.

What were the settings on the camera for these shots? Were they
both on contrast +1?

I don't see an improvement in metering from looking at these shots.
Almost looks like they just changed the EV setting a bit. No?

Ken.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hi Hariette,

Yes, I had one of the first units that came out and the 1.6 I used was a recent production. Possibly Nikon has improved the lens meanwhile or maybe it is just the variation in manufacturing tolerance

kind regards,
Vincent
http://www.VincentBockaert.com
Hariette said:
Vincent Bockaert said:
my feeling is that CA is mainly a lens issue indeed. Moreover,
since 1.7 is less saturated than 1.6, CA should be less not more.
Saturation reduction can reduce CA, but works better if applied
localized and channel specific, something the camera cannot do.

kind regards
Vincent
http://www.VincentBockaert.com
Hariette said:
Is it possible that the difference in CA is due to difference in
lens quality between camera with V1.6 & that with V1.7 you tested
?( I recently learned here that CA is a lens problem, not a
software one). Have you tried -Saturation with V1.7 to see if CA
is reduced?

Best regards
John
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hi Hariette,

it looks better mainly because there are more clouds and trees, but if you measure and look in the pure blue patches, noise is still pretty high (look in the red channel). But when you enlarge, the noise looks better because it is much less affected by jpeg compression since you saved it using a much better quality level than the camera did. To compare you would have to shoot in identical conditions as noise is affected by many factors (temperature being an important one).

Meanwhile it is sunday morning in Singapore :)

Vincent
http://www.VincentBockaert.com
Hariette said:
http://www.pbase.com/image/5510557/medium
I put a new picture converted from RAW. Interestingly I was
expecting the saving of the RAW to be much longer, it is quite fast
actually (someone else mentionned this in this forum)
The sky looks much better, doesn't it? But then again time of day,
position of the sun, etc. are different.

Must be late in Singapore... :-) night
Click to expand...
 
I think you've been looking at Sigma SD9 samples too much :-)

I'm curious though even if noise has never really been a big big issue with me about your "method-no-loss-noise-reduction-to-be-coming-soon-maybe" :-)
Cheers my friend :-) and have that coffee...
Vincent Bockaert said:
it looks better mainly because there are more clouds and trees, but
if you measure and look in the pure blue patches, noise is still
pretty high (look in the red channel). But when you enlarge, the
noise looks better because it is much less affected by jpeg
compression since you saved it using a much better quality level
than the camera did. To compare you would have to shoot in
identical conditions as noise is affected by many factors
(temperature being an important one).

Meanwhile it is sunday morning in Singapore :)

Vincent
http://www.VincentBockaert.com
Hariette said:
http://www.pbase.com/image/5510557/medium
I put a new picture converted from RAW. Interestingly I was
expecting the saving of the RAW to be much longer, it is quite fast
actually (someone else mentionned this in this forum)
The sky looks much better, doesn't it? But then again time of day,
position of the sun, etc. are different.

Must be late in Singapore... :-) night
Click to expand...
--
Click to expand...
 
Vincent Bockaert said:
Some more differences between firmware 1.6 and 1.7 of the Coolpix
5000.
http://www.vincentbockaert.com/CP5K_Firmware17_2.asp

Vincent
http://www.VincentBockaert.com
Click to expand...
Excellent stuff. Do you have any camera A to camera B comparisons before the V1.7 software was installed. I don't know if there is a noticeable difference between individual cameras. I've always suspected that there might be, but with computerized QC on the assembly line, they might always be within a micro-trice of each other.

Regards,

-iNova
--
http://www.digitalsecrets.net
 
Hi Hariette,

I still prefer the Canon Eos D30 over the SD9 in terms of blue sky noise. The SD9's strength is more in the absence of Bayer Interpolation Artifacts.

Not to worry, the noise thing is coming, time will make it crystal clear why there is this delay :)

V:ncent
http://www.VincentBockaert.com
Hariette said:
I think you've been looking at Sigma SD9 samples too much :-)
I'm curious though even if noise has never really been a big big
issue with me about your
"method-no-loss-noise-reduction-to-be-coming-soon-maybe" :-)
Cheers my friend :-) and have that coffee...
Click to expand...
 
Hi Peter,

Thanx. I was to eager to upgrade mine to 1.7 at night, so I could not compare the next morning. The other 1.6 camera was an unplanned thing and I only had it available 20 minutes or so (and did obviously not have a firmware upgrade with me). Possibly I will have another 1.6 available again. Anyway, I just updated the page with another example where the differences are smaller. http://www.vincentbockaert.com/CP5K_Firmware17_2.asp . So differences can also be due to minor differences in camera angle, or slight differences between lightning conditions due to clouds moving, etc. Even in the unlikely event the differences would be due to the upgrade, the other goodies are just too good to resist :)

Vincent
http://www.VincentBockaert.com
Peter iNova said:
Vincent Bockaert said:
Some more differences between firmware 1.6 and 1.7 of the Coolpix
5000.
http://www.vincentbockaert.com/CP5K_Firmware17_2.asp

Vincent
http://www.VincentBockaert.com
Click to expand...
Excellent stuff. Do you have any camera A to camera B comparisons
before the V1.7 software was installed. I don't know if there is a
noticeable difference between individual cameras. I've always
suspected that there might be, but with computerized QC on the
assembly line, they might always be within a micro-trice of each
other.

Regards,

-iNova
--
http://www.digitalsecrets.net
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top