Disparity - x10

Disparity

As is inevitable, one reflects at year end.

Unusually I was leaving a lesser Court a month back, the initial hearing had gone well, though I had prepared for the trial, the applicant wisely caved before.

As I was leaving that place, I turned to see those waiting, everyday people wearing the usual face of uncertainly decorated with a measure accompanying fear - people mostly unrepresented.

It stuck me as a defining statement of the times, the long proven disparity between true justice and blinkered justice was now tempered with the savage insecurity of life long debt and an overriding scene of impending personal abyss. Ones station in life had become tenuous, many openly wearing insecurity on their sleeve when merely provoked by the slightest upset.

Perhaps a post processed crop from a 2012 x10 frame could express it well.



Thanks for looking. :-D
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9311974549/getting-the-best-out-of-the-fujifilm-x10

In temporary compliance with some measure of technical contribution the crop is from an early frame where I was initially intent on comparing the x10 sensor with the earlier asp-c honeycomb Fuji sensors - hence the iso400 being the upper limit where the old sensors performed well. Not quite there initially, though impressive for the small sensor size, the new x10 replacement sensor is much closer particularly in the colour clarity and retention.

Interesting effect - I like it.

max metz said:

max metz wrote:
In temporary compliance with some measure of technical contribution the crop is from an early frame where I was initially intent on comparing the x10 sensor with the earlier asp-c honeycomb Fuji sensors - hence the iso400 being the upper limit where the old sensors performed well. Not quite there initially, though impressive for the small sensor size, the new x10 replacement sensor is much closer particularly in the colour clarity and retention.

Click to expand...

It is an excellent painting.

I think it will be quite interesting to see how long you choose to snub your nose at the moderators' attempts to stanch the flow of these single image threads (a.k.a. ego threads.) Of course, with such expertly rendered technical information as quoted above (so deep that I cannot parse it at all), you have perhaps saved this thread from yet another ignominious removal.

--

Personally I very much enjoy this rendition and I find it to be rather creative and nicely framed.

Thanks for this one as I think it is a nice share.

Best wishes, Gary N W SFO

max metz said:

max metz wrote:
In temporary compliance with some measure of technical contribution the crop is from an early frame where I was initially intent on comparing the x10 sensor with the earlier asp-c honeycomb Fuji sensors - hence the iso400 being the upper limit where the old sensors performed well. Not quite there initially, though impressive for the small sensor size, the new x10 replacement sensor is much closer particularly in the colour clarity and retention.

Click to expand...

I take it that the "temporary compliance" is to show your unhappiness with DPR's desire to display your photos in the photo sharing forums, and you'll soon revert back to what many saw as your attempts to flood this forum with all manner of photos, more as photo spam than as attempts to start meaningful conversations about the photos. You're also mistaken about the earlier Fuji "asp-c" (sic) sensors not performing well above ISO 400 unless you're referring to ancient camera such as the S2 Pro. The S3 Pro and S5 Pro were much improved and anyone that thinks that they don't perform well above ISO 400 hasn't learned how to use them, and probably will have problems getting the most out of other cameras too, cameras like the X10.

max metz said:

What's most impressive to me is that the blue channel noise, which was often the Achilles' heel of the S2 Pro, seems to be much, much better. In some ways, these are pretty impressive noise figures, so you're probably thinking "what about ISO 1600?" Glad you asked:

Amazingly, the luminance channel noise (Y-noise) is better than my old S2 Pro test at ISO 100! When I readjusted for a lower exposure to match the pixel values, I was still getting values in the red and blue channels that were lower than the S2 Pro, though the luminance channel was now slightly higher for some of the gray patches on the ColorChecker chart. More important, we've pushed the sensor up four stops (100->200->400->800->1600) and not had ruinous results. In general, Std Devs of 2 or less don't produce significant visible noise in images. You can see this just in file sizes alone: the ISO 100 image produced a 4.37MB image and the ISO 1600 image produced a 4.76MB image on identical subjects and at the same settings. This is an unusually low increase in size for that much ISO bump. . . .

Overall, noise handling on the S3 Pro is state-of-the-art and an improvement over the already quite good S2 Pro. Since many people use the S3 Pro as a JPEG camera and JPEG artifacts can get produced by and interact with noise in very bad ways, this is very good news. Indeed, I'll just simply say it here: if you only shoot JPEG, I don't know that there's another DSLR available that can outdo the S3 Pro in image quality (assuming, of course, that you like the color rendering; see next sections).

Click to expand...

http://bythom.com/fujis3review.htm


At the end of the review Thom lists the things that "Fujifilm Really Needs to Fix". It does not include high ISO performance, but includes write speed, playback speed, inactive response, menu choices and vertical grip.

On to the S5 Pro review :

max metz said:

Note that at the camera defaults in AdobeRGB the camera produces slightly less color saturation than "ideal," a slightly unexpected result. Meanwhile, in the F2 film simulation, the yellows and oranges are drifting more towards red and some of the blues a bit more towards cyan, but overall the color is pretty accurate and saturation is near perfect. All the film simulations differ slightly in a few of the color drifts, but there is no dramatic shift as I've seen on previous Fujifilm bodies. Moreover, at ISO 1600 the results are very close those of ISO 100; many bodies--the Canons and older Nikons being notorious for this--start to lose saturation quickly at higher ISO values.

Click to expand...

max metz said:

Noise
For general noise we have some good news, bad news to report. The good news is this: the S5 Pro has a two-stage noise reduction process built in (high ISO noise and long-exposure noise reduction techniques are applied as necessary) that works. The bad news is that these reduce detail and can't be completely turned off (I told you before: ORG means "sort of off"). Some have conjectured that the S5 Pro has a different, more aggressive antialiasing filter over the sensor than the S3 Pro, but I'm not so sure that's true. I think the detail-aliasing is coming from the RP Processor Pro ASIC. I say that because I don't really see a difference in detail in RAF (raw) files between the two cameras, but I do with JPEG images. The only difference? That ASIC and its noise reduction techniques.

Click to expand...

`

max metz said:

As I've written before, I'm really getting leery of reporting numbers for noise tests, instead trusting what I see more than a number can tell you. On an absolute numbers standpoint, with NOISE REDUCTION set to STD, the S5 Pro generates only decent values at ISO 1600 and even at ISO 3200 (much less so at ORG). By "decent" I mean that numerically, they're okay but not particularly low in value (the black patch on the ColorChecker chart generated a slightly higher noise level than the D200 at ISO 1600, though the patches above middle gray measured better than the D200). Interestingly, all three channels measured very closely in noise, showing that Fujifilm opted more for color noise reduction than luminance noise reduction. Thus, I find a slight bit of "graininess" in the ISO 1600 images and a slight bit of detail reduction, both of which remind me a lot of a well-controlled high ISO film. The question is whether or not you'll like the image that results, not whether you've got "better numbers" than the guy shooting next to you. Here's one place where what you use the camera for will determine your like or dislike of what Fujifilm has done.

For example, if you're shooting weddings and portraits, a bit of detail reduction actually tends to improve skins (at the expense of hair detail). The extra highlight detail of the dynamic range expansion can pull in detail that would be blasted on on other cameras, so the net impact for these shooters is generally positive (and you can always dial down the noise reduction by setting ORG). This, of course, is Fujifilm's target market for the S5 Pro, so the noise reduction settings don't really hamper you. Okay, you might worry about hair detail, but that's about it.

. . . I'd say that up to ISO 800 the noise reduction is tolerable for detail shooters, especially at the ORG setting.

Overall chroma noise is held down impressively except at ISO 3200, where it starts to creep in.

Click to expand...

`

max metz said:

Personally, I think you have to live with the camera's noise reduction (remember, this is a worst case scenario here). For the types of shooters the camera is likely to attract, the noise reduction isn't going to be a huge issue (but it will be an issue at ISO 3200).

Click to expand...

http://bythom.com/s5review.htm

Billx08 said:

Billx08 wrote:
I take it that the "temporary compliance" is to show your unhappiness with DPR's desire to display your photos in the photo sharing forums, and you'll soon revert back to what many saw as your attempts to flood this forum with all manner of photos, more as photo spam than as attempts to start meaningful conversations about the photos.

Click to expand...

Billx08 said:

--

Click to expand...

Not sure what justifies such an outbreak of bile from you and Kim ... and I've never quite understood the wish of the forum police to remove image posts from the general forum anyway. If you saw fit to treat them as photo spam rather than as a starting-point for meaningful discussion, that says more about your attitude than it does about the original poster(s).

tim

timo said:

timo wrote:

timo said:

Billx08 wrote:
I take it that the "temporary compliance" is to show your unhappiness with DPR's desire to display your photos in the photo sharing forums, and you'll soon revert back to what many saw as your attempts to flood this forum with all manner of photos, more as photo spam than as attempts to start meaningful conversations about the photos.

--

Click to expand...

Not sure what justifies such an outbreak of bile from you and Kim ... and I've never quite understood the wish of the forum police to remove image posts from the general forum anyway. If you saw fit to treat them as photo spam rather than as a starting-point for meaningful discussion, that says more about your attitude than it does about the original poster(s).

tim

Click to expand...

DPR makes the rules, not the police. Those that break the rules are given warnings and if they are incapable of following these warnings, then they get tossed into the cooler.

If you have a beef with the rules, take it up with DPR rather than slander the police.

Member said:

rattymouse wrote:

Member said:

timo wrote:

Member said:

Billx08 wrote:
I take it that the "temporary compliance" is to show your unhappiness with DPR's desire to display your photos in the photo sharing forums, and you'll soon revert back to what many saw as your attempts to flood this forum with all manner of photos, more as photo spam than as attempts to start meaningful conversations about the photos.

--

Click to expand...

Not sure what justifies such an outbreak of bile from you and Kim ... and I've never quite understood the wish of the forum police to remove image posts from the general forum anyway. If you saw fit to treat them as photo spam rather than as a starting-point for meaningful discussion, that says more about your attitude than it does about the original poster(s).

tim

Click to expand...

DPR makes the rules, not the police. Those that break the rules are given warnings and if they are incapable of following these warnings, then they get tossed into the cooler.

If you have a beef with the rules, take it up with DPR rather than slander the police.

Click to expand...

Silly me, it must be my eyesight, or failing memory, but can you point out where I slandered the forum police?

I salute your respect for the rules. In that spirit, I note DPReview's injunction: "The basic rules for discussions on dpreview.com are simple: be polite and civil; do not be offensive, malicious or antagonistic" - something that not all contributors to this particular forum may have read.

--

tim
www.pbase.com/timotheus

timo said:

timo wrote:

timo said:

Billx08 wrote:
I take it that the "temporary compliance" is to show your unhappiness with DPR's desire to display your photos in the photo sharing forums, and you'll soon revert back to what many saw as your attempts to flood this forum with all manner of photos, more as photo spam than as attempts to start meaningful conversations about the photos.

--

Click to expand...

Not sure what justifies such an outbreak of bile from you and Kim ...

Click to expand...

I posted bile? Could you tell it was bile by the color, or the smell?

Seriously. I don't quite know what justifies your judgemental attitude .... but I would not have openly questioned it had you not slagged me for no reason.

By the way ... have you been reading the forum the last couple of weeks? And have you read Max's responses to me or referencing me?

timo said:

and I've never quite understood

Click to expand...

Obviously.

Thanks very much Trevor.

I guess with the shift from epistemology to semantics well established since its beginnings in the academic Arts world one sees more photography in National and State Galleries - more often now as photography imitating the traditional movements of the visual arts.


With Photoshop and Paintshop Pro being so very powerful its fun exploring the techniques available with a computer - techniques that extend well beyond those early crude though iconic Andy Warhol's are readily available to us all.

Thanks heaps Gary.

Expression in the visual Arts rises and falls with wave like regularity, much akin to the water and ocean floor edge on a beach, technique and expression are always there just in different balances of measure.

Meaning is the part that passes through our senses and caresses our soul, sometimes collectively, technique being merely the mechanism by which this is achieved. This expression helps break the inherent individual isolation of the modern machine we know as our world - whether that involves us as expressor or expressee.

Best to you both mate. :-D

Thanks very much Tim.

There will always be a too'ing and fro'ing between the those who find a permanent place at the alter of technique and others seeking a more artistic direction. It can become a question of faith for many, a theology, where zealots long for inquisition.

Technique for the most part though, is bound up in the moment, knowledge with relevance to a particular time frame. Rembrandt as a master of candle light, is more relevant to those caught in nights lit by candles - while Rembrandt as master of expression lives on well into the technical realm of light-bulb.

Enjoy the weekend mate. :-D

max metz said:

max metz wrote:

There will always be a too'ing and fro'ing between the those who find a permanent place at the alter of technique and others seeking a more artistic direction.

Click to expand...

There is a third axis that we should not forget -- those who post pseudo-art accompanied by pseudo-poetry and baffling pseudo-technical bones thrown to the moderators, while injecting digs at the moderators for trying to control the flood of same. Very self-referential, hence in the end somewhat artistic on at least one level

And if we judge by the volume of such posts having dropped significantly, the mods have had a very desirable effect, albeit with the coefficient of acerbity in the text of the remaining posts of that ilk having risen rather dramatically.

But then you can't have everything.

max metz said:

It can become a question of faith for many, a theology, where zealots long for inquisition.

Click to expand...

Actually, the zealots will continue to try to prove that active moderation may not work against the truly driven ... just the usual ebb and flow when personalities clash ...

max metz said:

Technique for the most part though, is bound up in the moment, knowledge with relevance to a particular time frame. Rembrandt as a master of candle light, is more relevant to those caught in nights lit by candles - while Rembrandt as master of expression lives on well into the technical realm of light-bulb.

Click to expand...

:-?