Reading mode: Light Dark

TCON-300S Seal pup!

Go to last post
David Ellsworth said:


I saw this seal pup on the beach, and since we're not supposed to
get too close (I've learned this in the past from lifeguards, plus
there was a sign to that effect) it was a perfect opportunity to
use my new TCON-300S! I ran back to get it, and started taking
pictures. Here are some of the better ones:

http://www.pbase.com/image/7881635
http://www.pbase.com/qubit/tcon300s&page=2
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing those, David. I've been seriously thinking (procrastinating) on the TCON300 myself. So I apprecaite seeing some examples of it's abilities. And these are really enjoyable!

Did you do any postprocessing, or are these straight from the camera? They look a (leetle) bit "unsharp", so that's why I'm asking. And also if you have your camera sharpening set to soft.
--
Cheers,
markE
  • Oly E-20, LiPo, FL-40, WCON, TCON, Wacom Graphire II, Epson PS 820
-Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/marke

 
markE said:
Thanks for sharing those, David. I've been seriously thinking
(procrastinating) on the TCON300 myself. So I apprecaite seeing
some examples of it's abilities. And these are really enjoyable!
Click to expand...
Thanks Mark, glad you liked them!

I might have gotten my TCON300 much sooner if I'd known how good it really was. But it was really hard finding any full-size samples taken with an E-20. In fact, I don't think I ever found any; just a few taken with the E-10. Truth be told though, the main reason I waited was to save up some money. My experience with Olympus lens quality doesn't leave much room for doubt. :-)
markE59102 said:
Did you do any postprocessing, or are these straight from the
camera? They look a (leetle) bit "unsharp", so that's why I'm
asking. And also if you have your camera sharpening set to soft.
Click to expand...
Most of them are unprocessed, and the ones that are are very conservatively processed. I hate the "sharpened" look in most cases; it doesn't add any real detail and it usually adds ugly haloes. When I do use it, I go for the smallest radius possible at a level that doesn't create haloes. Sometimes I even iterate a radius 0.2, strength 500 USM twice in Photoshop (try it, you'll see what I mean; but convert to 16-bit first). Also you're correct about my camera mode.

(As a side note, I really wish DVD sharpening was left to the player hardware/software and not hard-coded into DVDs. Even weakly-applied edge enhancement looks ugly to me in a DVD, and strong EE is just sickening. Just look at the Star Wars: Phantom Menace DVD to see what I mean.)
 
David Ellsworth said:
Most of them are unprocessed, and the ones that are are very
conservatively processed. I hate the "sharpened" look in most
cases; it doesn't add any real detail and it usually adds ugly
haloes. When I do use it, I go for the smallest radius possible at
a level that doesn't create haloes.
Click to expand...
I understand what you mean about avoiding the haloes. But aren't these created in degrees, rather than an absolute? It seems to me that some haloes can very, very faint, and onlt detected with magnification. But these same ones cannot be seen with the naked eye. I realize though, that you can take sharpening too far (maybe I do sometimes).
David Ellsworth said:
Sometimes I even iterate a
radius 0.2, strength 500 USM twice in Photoshop (try it, you'll see
what I mean; but convert to 16-bit first).
Click to expand...
Is it common for you to use a different sharpening receipe for web as opposed to print? I seem to. I've heard that using a radius less than .3 won't do any good, that the best area to stick in is around .3 - .6. But if you're setting your strength at 500...did you say FIVE HUNDRED? Wow, that really surprizes me, but now I'll have to try it. Do you set any threshold with it?
David Ellsworth said:
(As a side note, I really wish DVD sharpening was left to the
player hardware/software and not hard-coded into DVDs. Even
weakly-applied edge enhancement looks ugly to me in a DVD, and
strong EE is just sickening. Just look at the Star Wars: Phantom
Menace DVD to see what I mean.)
Click to expand...
I never like the Star Wars stuff, but now I might just have to check that out!
Thanks.
--
Cheers,
markE
  • Oly E-20, LiPo, FL-40, WCON, TCON, Wacom Graphire II, Epson PS 820
-Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/marke

 
David Ellsworth wrote:

David, I just went through the first page of your pbase gallery. I really am impressed with the quality you were able to get out of that lens...HANDHELD! I especially like the single sandpiper pic (#7486772, I believe).

You are really making it difficult to keep that wallet in check! I've been thinking that I should wait to see if the price comes down, but you know what they say, "You'll be missing all those shots!"

I think the ol' wallet will get a bit lighter come next week. Now I just want to kind a good price.
--
Cheers,
markE
  • Oly E-20, LiPo, FL-40, WCON, TCON, Wacom Graphire II, Epson PS 820
-Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/marke

 
markE said:
I understand what you mean about avoiding the haloes. But aren't
these created in degrees, rather than an absolute? It seems to me
that some haloes can very, very faint, and onlt detected with
magnification. But these same ones cannot be seen with the naked
eye. I realize though, that you can take sharpening too far (maybe
I do sometimes).
Click to expand...
I have a very sharp monitor, and very often see sharpening haloes even if they're weak. It's distracting and unnatural to me.

The problem with sharpening, is that it is dependent on your viewing device. It may look good on one monitor, and overdone on another.
markE59102 said:
Is it common for you to use a different sharpening receipe for web
as opposed to print? I seem to. I've heard that using a radius less
than .3 won't do any good, that the best area to stick in is around
.3 - .6. But if you're setting your strength at 500...did you say
FIVE HUNDRED? Wow, that really surprizes me, but now I'll have to
try it. Do you set any threshold with it?
Click to expand...
Hmmm... I don't know why I didn't do this before. I finally compared (0.2,500) 2 with (0.3,x) 1 and found that where x=350, the two create virtually the exact same effect. So that iterated 0.2 radius thing was kind of silly. :)

What I've used for a much longer time is radius 0.3 with strength 200-300. But even that much sharpening has left an increasingly bitter taste in my mouth, and I find myself preferring to look at the unsharpened version. (For prints it's another matter... but I don't make many.)

I think the ideal sharpening would be an inverse blur -- applying a specific kind of blur to the result would take you back to the original. I'm not sure a solution exists for that... it'd be perfect, though! (When I blur something that had USM applied, I still see the haloes.)
markE59102 said:
I never like the Star Wars stuff, but now I might just have to
check that out!
Thanks.
Click to expand...
Hehe, you say that so cheerfully :) it's an example of the worst EE I've ever seen on a DVD.

The sickening thing about EE on DVDs is that they actually run a low-pass filter over the image... to make it LESS sharp and avoid flicker on interlaced TVs... and then they sharpen it to compensate! This should REALLY be done on the DVD player and not the DVD itself!

Apparently LucasFilm learned their lesson though. The Star Wars Episode 2 DVD is very sharp -- with REAL detail. Though it does still have a bit of sharpening (which I don't like) but almost all DVDs have that.
 
David, thanks for the TCON-300 samples. This is a lens I've been so tempted to invest in since the day I got my E20 last November. If it was a zoom lens it'd already be in my bag. But now I'm really tempted. Nice work.

By the way....the thing with Phantom menace I believe has more to do with just DVD effects. The picture was shot entirely digitally. Lucas used 100K DV cams to shoot it with. He also has had conferences with the likes of Spielberg and Scorcese, where he stated that film will be dead in the near future, much to the actual chagrin of his peers. He shot Phantom Menace in a sense to prove his point.

The thing is, the movie is not only completely digital, but is intended to be viewed on HDTV monitors and the new digital projection theaters going up. Even in the digital theaters, the movie does'nt look that good and has gotten bad reviews for image quality. This is because the theaters need to be calibrated for the optics precisely for the medium. There's really only one so far in New York, I forget the name, that has gone to the trouble and expense of this special calibration, and the movie looked excellent on it to reviewers. But slight mis-alignments will cause all sorts of percievable problems. Home theaters are not excluded from these problems. Focus, convergence, etc etc.

At home, the trouble is that unless you are viewing this picture on a high definition monitor with proper calibration again, it is not going to look right. Viewing it on a Walmart blue light special 19" TV with a similar cheapo DVD player is'nt going to do it justice.

The deal is that is it intended to look the same as a ordinary DVD? I don't think so. The encoding used for digital files is indeed capable of excellent dynamic range. So are software, graphics systems and sensors.....so it seems also that the cameras themselves that Lucas is using are not to blame. It seems the REPRODUCTION EQUIPMENT is however. The medium on which the final images are displayed. Blame your home theater system.

As far as digital projection movies not looking like film right now falls it seems in the dynamic range....it seems to be comparatively limited. There is no true black obtainable it seems in them, rather, a deep gray. That therefor affects the depth and texture of the picture. In the home, most people are affected by the habit of not lowering the ambient lighting of the room in which the material is viewed on a home theater to the intended darkness of the display. I know this does'nt exactly pertain to your points about sharpness and contrast, but I believe it plays a part.

I also believe Lucas is right. Digital will of course eventually beat film. But the medium is still in it's infancy, and the capture as well as displaying of the medium will still have it's quirks for now. But Phantom Menace was truly a revolutionary picture in that it proves it can be done, entirely digitally.
D.

--
Oly E20, Kodak DC4800's, Canon GL1, ZR25, Minolta HTsi+
 
Wow, what great shots and what a great subject. I didn't think I would want, or could handle the size of the TCON-300S, (or the price), but these pics are making me reconsider. I still have to absorb the price of my new E-20 and all the other lenses that I bought. Mayber by Christmas!!!
 
This brings up another question for a newbie. My camera bag has grown too small overnight and obviously this lens won't fit even if I took everything else out of the bag. Any bad recommendations would be greatly appreciated.
 
Kobie said:
This brings up another question for a newbie. My camera bag has
grown too small overnight and obviously this lens won't fit even if
I took everything else out of the bag. Any bad recommendations
would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...
I've been agonizing over this for quite some time myself. Since I already have the LiPo, I know I'll be getting the extra support arm required to use the TCON300 with the LiPo. I'm going to wait until I get those before I start looking at a new bag though. This is my reasoning: When I'm out in the field using the TCON300 set-up, it will require a bit of time and planning. Therefore, I don't think I'll be needing a bag that allows me to grab lenses on the fly.

So... I think the answer would be one of the backpack style bags, such as made by Lowepro and Tamrac. The disadvantage of not having a "quick draw" with the backpack bag, is overcome by the higher comfort level of it.
--
Cheers,
markE
  • Oly E-20, LiPo, FL-40, WCON, TCON, Wacom Graphire II, Epson PS 820
-Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/marke

 
David M. said:
David, thanks for the TCON-300 samples. This is a lens I've been
so tempted to invest in since the day I got my E20 last November.
If it was a zoom lens it'd already be in my bag. But now I'm
really tempted. Nice work.
Click to expand...
Thanks David.
David M. said:
By the way....the thing with Phantom menace I believe has more to
do with just DVD effects. The picture was shot entirely digitally.
Click to expand...
[snip]

You're right about it being shot digitally. However, the DVD was made from a film transfer, for reasons that seemed entirely silly to me. Lucas wanted the DVD to have the quality of color tones that film has. That's so silly... because DVD is not film, and if you want certain color tones, just model them digitally! Sheesh. And because it was made from a film transfer, the equipment used applied some filters that may even have been nondeliberate. But the result is really poor quality.

By the way, I'm not using some crappy monitor to play my DVDs. I'm using a 24" Sony GDM-FW900, with a 0.24mm stripe pitch and 16:10 aspect ratio. That actually helps me to see all the defects in a picture, or if it's a really high quality picture, to see it in all its glory.

Thankfully, the Attack of the Clones DVD was done directly from the digital master, and it shows. I still wish it didn't apply any sharpening at alll, though.
 
Kobie,

I recently purchased a Lowepro Magnum AW bag that will hold just about everything. I have the following packed in there with room to spare:
-E10 with Lipo attached.
-FL40
-WCON
-MCON
-TCON 14B
-SA2 Grip (picked up on Ebay, still don't have the TCON 300....yet)
-Several hoods
-Several filters
-All my cords, wires, chargers, manuals, etc.

The quality of the bag is excellent, and it looks very nice and professional to boot.

Randy
Kobie said:
This brings up another question for a newbie. My camera bag has
grown too small overnight and obviously this lens won't fit even if
I took everything else out of the bag. Any bad recommendations
would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...
 
Hi David.

First, I did'nt mean to imply you are using a "crappy" monitor. It was my way of exxaggerating the common misconceptions by most people who see this picture, complain, yet don't understand the technology involved. I understand that you seem to, but most don't. Kind of like people who shoot scenes at home with a digital camcorder, dub to VHS, and wonder why the suppsed benefits and quality of digital are mostly lost on the VHS copy.

I was'nt aware that the DVD was created from a film transfer. And frankly, I don't understand why either. It seems pointless. Lucas was adamant in his trying to prove that digital can and will beat film....especially in color gamut. And the picture shown in the digital projection theaters is not transferred to film. So why this would be done on the home DVD version is simply beyond me.

Actually, I've not understood the whole "film look" thing in DV circles for a long time now. It's silly. Many amateur DV enthusiasts are constantly after it. There's even a camera out now in the "prosumer" market, the DVX100 Panasonic, that shoots in 24P. Yep, you guessed it, for that cinematic "film look". Some shoot in a Progressive scan or FRame mode 30FPS, or even a really crappy 15, to try and achieve it. The way I see it is this....they are basically creating some very awful looking video and calling it "creative" and slapping the film look label on it. They're also hoping the cam will do all the work to achieve certain artistic effects, instead of working it and doing it right through lighting technique and proper NLE/post editing. Oh well.
Thanks for the reply.
D.
David Ellsworth said:
David M. said:
David, thanks for the TCON-300 samples. This is a lens I've been
so tempted to invest in since the day I got my E20 last November.
If it was a zoom lens it'd already be in my bag. But now I'm
really tempted. Nice work.
Click to expand...
Thanks David.
David Ellsworth said:
By the way....the thing with Phantom menace I believe has more to
do with just DVD effects. The picture was shot entirely digitally.
Click to expand...
[snip]

You're right about it being shot digitally. However, the DVD was
made from a film transfer, for reasons that seemed entirely silly
to me. Lucas wanted the DVD to have the quality of color tones that
film has. That's so silly... because DVD is not film, and if you
want certain color tones, just model them digitally! Sheesh. And
because it was made from a film transfer, the equipment used
applied some filters that may even have been nondeliberate. But the
result is really poor quality.

By the way, I'm not using some crappy monitor to play my DVDs. I'm
using a 24" Sony GDM-FW900, with a 0.24mm stripe pitch and 16:10
aspect ratio. That actually helps me to see all the defects in a
picture, or if it's a really high quality picture, to see it in all
its glory.

Thankfully, the Attack of the Clones DVD was done directly from the
digital master, and it shows. I still wish it didn't apply any
sharpening at alll, though.
Click to expand...
--
Oly E20, Kodak DC4800's, Canon GL1, ZR25, Minolta HTsi+
 
I know this should be a new thread, but I'm still new at this. Anyway, thanks for the bad advice. I checked it out and it looks very nice.
 
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