Trevor G
Veteran Member
Which non-EXR part did you want to see - L size against M size? That is, Software EXR versus Hardware EXR?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
This question is for anyone that sold the X10 For X20
- Thread starter jeffsvisions
- Start date
Trevor G
Veteran Member
The differences are small.
EXR Software on the X20 produces no less a result than EXR Hardware on the X10. It appears to be equivalent or slightly better in highlight retention, and equivalent or slightly better in noisy, shadow areas, in spite of having to run at ISO400 instead of ISO100.
The X10 is not better in any way that I know of, but the X20 certainly has many key advantages. That won't stop the X10 producing good images in the right hands, since the camera is generally only a small factor in the quality of photos that we produce
And, yes, I think the answer to the second question is, No.
But it sure has taken a long road to get there! ;-)
Trevor G
Veteran Member
Did any of my X20 images look posterised or "terrible" compared to the X10?
photoreddi
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,973
- Solutions
- 34
- Reaction score
- 2,821
You had the answer in front of your nose represented by the two clearly charts. Both of them show the DR of 12mp X10 vs three X10 EXR. In other words, X10 L size vs three X10 EXR M size results. See how simple that was? Everything labeled and obvious, unlike your mismatched comparisons.
Thimk!
Trevor G
Veteran Member
I'm not into games.
I asked a serious question - I still don't know what you are saying.
Graphs mean not a lot, because the much-vaunted EXR technology from a supposedly 11.3EV DR X10 gives me worse pictures than my 9.5EV DR Nikon D200.
photoreddi
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,973
- Solutions
- 34
- Reaction score
- 2,821
I rarely find a need to take closer looks at your comparison images, but you failed to understand my point. Do any of your X20 images have SOOC 20 stop or 30 stop dynamic ranges? Even with this clue, I think that you'll still miss my point so here's another clue. It's more about what might happen if you'll need to expand the tonal range of your X20's images because the DR setting was too high.
Thimk!
photoreddi
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,973
- Solutions
- 34
- Reaction score
- 2,821
You are indeed into games. Your DR comparison photos demonstrate that quite well.
It was Thimk!, not Think! Because I think that a clue won't do for you, here's an explanation instead.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/thimk-a-good-reminder-to-do-just-that/
.
Really? I don't find your questions serious at all.
.
See? You're not thimking, otherwise you'd be able to get more out of your X10. Either that or the two DR measurements were made using different testing methods. I'm surprised that you waste your valuable time here in what you dismissively refer to (in other forums) as the baby Fuji forum.
Like the one (you) incessantly claiming, at the time, despite the calls to reason from others, that X10 has the 2.7 Ev of magical highlight protection, unheard of in a small sensor camera...
6) Why am I smarter then anybody else, including Fujifilm, DPR and DXO. If the world would only listen to me, I offer my brilliance for free, look and admire!
DavidMillier
Forum Pro
I know there is history here but goading doesn't help anyone.
Do we care about the results? It would seem so, so let people who disagree at least work together to find mutually acceptable test methods. Please...
Do we care about the results? It would seem so, so let people who disagree at least work together to find mutually acceptable test methods. Please...
Adam-T
Forum Pro
I'd Like to see this thread re-started but with Trevor-G banned from replying so that we all get a balanced unbiased answer without hype, skewed tests and arguing .....
Sorry Trevor but you`re behaving like the "Joms" of the X20, please stop flooding threads with your agenda and let rational users / upgraders get a word in .......
--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **
Sorry Trevor but you`re behaving like the "Joms" of the X20, please stop flooding threads with your agenda and let rational users / upgraders get a word in .......
--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **
Last edited:
Trevor G
Veteran Member
You're way off topic, Adam.
So far I am the only respondent who sold the X10 and bought an X20 (although I owned them both at the same time, and took the published test images side-by-side.)
That's hardly skewed.
Moreover, if you actually read some of my posts (in this and other threads) you will see that the results surprised me at the time, too.
Plenty of room for someone else to show how much better the X10 is than the X20. I can't show that...and these are images and crops that I haven't showed before.
It's funny that none of you armchair critics can post photos or material of your own.
What's even funnier is that you want to supress the truth.
--
Cheers ;-)
Trevor G
Silkypix tutorials at: http://photo.computerwyse.com
Last edited:
L
Lightpath48
Guest
I'd like to see more EXR and X-Trans photography! (So good, that I don't have a care about what settings were used.) Okay, "Practice what you preach", right? So here's my Spooky Old Tree shot. I like it, it just works for me!
X10, EXR Auto
X10, EXR Auto
Last edited:
photoreddi
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,973
- Solutions
- 34
- Reaction score
- 2,821
When you previously asked for examples of what EXR DR can do I showed it with examples from one of DPR's reviews, examples which impressed the reviewer. You dismissed the results as being (possibly paraphrasing) "trivial", a mere party trick. There's nothing that anyone could post that you'd accept that could possibly invalidate your agenda based posturing.
.
Well goh.uh.ah.uh.lee, Goms, surprise, surprise, surprise! That's a right funny knee slapper!
The requisite clue...
photoreddi
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,973
- Solutions
- 34
- Reaction score
- 2,821
I like it too! One of the few photos that looks halfway decent viewed in-line, the "original size" view is as usual, so much better.
Adam-T
Forum Pro
This is my point . I wish that someone like Kim would do a fair unbiased non-agenda A:B comparison without the results and samples skewed to satisfy an agenda .. that`d settle it once and for all ..
I`d not expect Trevor to do a Fair X10/X20 test anymore than I would Joms to do a fair FZ200/HS50 one , though in all fairness, I suspect we`d get a less biased test even from Joms ! ..
Trevor G
Veteran Member
That was 2008?
Things have come a long way since then.
You are welcome to washed out, low contrast highlights. I prefer my highlight details strong and clear.
Trevor G
Veteran Member
Adam, you never even noticed me until one day, in another forum I believe, I disagreed with you over something.
The war (from you) has been on ever since.
I formerly championed the X10 and its great highlight retention capabilities until I realised that it was, via OOC JPEGs, a marginal benefit. You have to shoot RAW and use Adobe to get proper results.
Or else, underexpose as usual to avoid clipping.
Since I shot the X10 and the X20 side by side with the same settings the test can hardly be called skewed.
I have and had no agenda - in one post even in this thread I anticipated results that would favour the X10, but actually favoured the X20 once I examined the pics.
In a previous thread I also did the same thing. I am examining these images as I go - no agenda at all.
DavidMillier
Forum Pro
You've not responded to my previous comments on this for some reason, so I'll try again.
Film still takes the accolades for dynamic range. It does it by having a non-linear response at the highlights shoulder.
Through the midtones the density increases more or less linearly with increasing exposure, exactly like digiital sensors. Then as you reach the upper highlight zone, film's response starts to droop - density increases less and less as more and more exposure is given.This produces a nice gentle roll off towards white. Digital however continues on with a linear response until saturation and sudden hard clipping to white is the result, which is one of the biggest criticisms of digital.
If the X10 can mimic film with compressed highlights and a gentle roll off, this is not the terrible thing you describe. but exactly the desired response that has been sought for years.
It is perverse that you think this is an undesirable weakness!
Film still takes the accolades for dynamic range. It does it by having a non-linear response at the highlights shoulder.
Through the midtones the density increases more or less linearly with increasing exposure, exactly like digiital sensors. Then as you reach the upper highlight zone, film's response starts to droop - density increases less and less as more and more exposure is given.This produces a nice gentle roll off towards white. Digital however continues on with a linear response until saturation and sudden hard clipping to white is the result, which is one of the biggest criticisms of digital.
If the X10 can mimic film with compressed highlights and a gentle roll off, this is not the terrible thing you describe. but exactly the desired response that has been sought for years.
It is perverse that you think this is an undesirable weakness!
Trevor G
Veteran Member
No one picked you up on this major boo-boo so it's left to me. ;-(Here's another DR comparison where the only change is replacing 12mp DR 100 with 12mp DR 400, which is obviously using a different tone curve to increase the DR, not EXR hardware that would provide a "true" DR increase.
You didn't even look at your own image - in the bottom part all tone curves are identical.
In the top part (which you left out) DR200 curves, whether Software or Hardware, are superimposed over each other.
It's the same for DR400 - both Software and Hardware tone curves are identical.
There is no such thing as a non-tone-curve-related "true" DR increase. In other words, what you call "true" DR and others call EXR Hardware, is still totally tone curve limited. It's exactly the same as good old EXR Software...
Someone keeps flashing up these DPR charts to try to show how I have made a big mistake, but here is the next chart down from the one you have shown. I have added annotations:
Please read the text below the chart - it's a very good description of Hardware versus Software EXR results
There is no "magical" increase of Hardware DR over Software DR, nor is there a big noise problem at the bottom end.
In fact, DPR's chart (where I wouldn't be surprised if they had accidentally reversed the proper IDs) shows a slight 2/3EV improvement in Software DR in the lowlights. Wow.
What's more, my independant testing, without even realising that the results were home and hosed already, shows the same thing but a little more visually. It's no wonder, then, that the later X-Trans sensor in the X20 produces a slightly better result than from the X10.
I don't read your posts normally, but I was drawn to this one!
--
Cheers ;-)
Trevor G
Silkypix tutorials at: http://photo.computerwyse.com
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum