X3F, could somebody donate

It is probably my eyes. This is a good example why I stay away from color work if I can. I just don't see colors that well. I am quite certain it is not the monitor. I should just give the image to someone and let them work it!

Rick

Stephen Waits said:

Is your monitor calibrated properly? I'm not going after you, I'm
being serious because that's about the worse color job I've seen in
awhile. The most surprising thing is that this came from you.

It's crossed my mnd that you may have been joking and I missed it..

--Steve

Click to expand...

--
It's a tough job, living in Hawaii, but someone has to do it!!!

.......Feel The Power.........Sigma.....SD9..........

http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.silveroaksranch.com
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home

sg10 said:

Kodak's graphic supporting their patented, proprietary ERI format...



"A digital camera typically captures a raw image having a larger
color gamut (range of colors) and dynamic range (range of
brightness) than can be retained when the image is "rendered" to
form the JPEG image file." --Kodak

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/imageprocessing/sd9

sg10 said:

sg10 said:

"A digital camera typically captures a raw image having a larger
color gamut (range of colors) and dynamic range (range of
brightness) than can be retained when the image is "rendered" to
form the JPEG image file." --Kodak

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

"Typically" means when converted to the sRGB color space. Note how sRGB dominates the center graphic. This has nothing to to with JPEG per se; it only has to do with the least common denominator colorspace.

--
Erik

sg10,

Well, I've heard of skin shots, but I must say that I can understand why these are among your favorites. She's absolutely precious.

By the way, I can see the yellow, green and blue "problems" that Dmitriy talks about - can't you? Along with the pink elephants too - LOL!

Thanks for sharing.

Cliff.

sg10 said:

Dmitriy Belenko said:

Sure, emphasized blues and yellows work well for the pictures
you've provided. But some of us shoot mainly portraits.

Click to expand...

My favorite skin shots... :^)

http://www.pbase.com/image/19918049/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/21065440/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/19906736/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/19614399/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/21065679/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/21065680/original.jpg

Click to expand...

--
Cliff. Johnston

Sean,

That or you just steped in it! Time to hose off our shoes.

He reminds me of another fellow that I've been verbally assaulted by on the Professional Forum - Petteri. That troll just had a go at me for the second time in a while. They both seem to fit the same psychological profile. I wonder if they work for Canon and/or have a vested interested in Canon? Surely they can't be "normal". LOL.

Cliff.

Sean said:

Sniff, Sniff..........methinks I smell a troll...

--
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9
http://www.pbase.com/fivesolas

Click to expand...

--
Cliff. Johnston

sg10,

Damn, there's that yellow again! Can't you see the band coming up over her shoulder? Why do you keep feeding this guy ammunition? LOL.

Heh, he already self-diagnosed his problem - Canon owner.

Cliff.

sg10 said:

Here's another I found in my recycle bin with the colors you were
looking for.

And don't forget these are JPEGs. JPEG, by design, throws away
8191/8192nds of the SD-9's color palette (JPEG uses about half the
dynamic range of its 24-bit format, the SD-9 captures 36-bit RAW).
Web browsers dumb down the color even more. But anyway...

Click to expand...

--
Cliff. Johnston

rick,

Talk about adding fuel to the fire. There's that yellow "problem" again (in her hair this time), and the blue in the goat's eye - obviously wrong again. Tongue-in-cheek, of course. Hmmm, I wonder if that's a yellow-green or blue problem? Perhaps a combination?

On the serious side: if one looks at the RAW images provided on the Sigma demo cd one can see a slight yellow-green caste to the skin on image #12. It took me less than 15 seconds to correct for it. That was with no previous experience with PhotoPro and no looking at Help. At that point I had been in the program approximately 3 minutes or so. Quite frankly I don't see what the "problem" is. We buy the SD-9 knowing that the RAW image is the equivalent of a flim image. I spent decades adjusting and timing chemical developers, exposure times and papers. Now if I can do much of the same in seconds, am I not much better off? I think so. If I wanted a point and shoot camera I'd buy the Sony 828.

Cliff.

rick decker said:

http://www.pbase.com/image/14135357

Dmitriy Belenko said:

rick decker said:

http://www.lightreflection.com/IMG00880.X3F

http://www.lightreflection.com/IMG01442.X3F

http://www.lightreflection.com/IMG06016.X3F

aaronb said:

I have pretty much decided to scrap my 10D for an SD9. I have
downloaded SPP and processed the sample X3F files from sigma. I d
like to try some files that arent supplied by Sigma, would anyone
be kind enough to donate a file or two?? please drop me an email
--
Aaron Bass
http://www.ignition-media.net

Click to expand...

--
It's a tough job, living in Hawaii but someone has to do it!!!

.......Feel The Power.........Sigma.....SD9..........

http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.silveroaksranch.com
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
It's a tough job, living in Hawaii but someone has to do it!!!

.......Feel The Power.........Sigma.....SD9..........

http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.silveroaksranch.com
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home

Click to expand...

--
Cliff. Johnston

I seriously doubt guys like this work for canon, or any other company related to cameras. I would think them most likely to work somewhere like McDonalds. Our most recent troll to bless this forum has some obvious insecurity problems and thinks it necessary to come here to discuss things he knows nothing about. Poor guy. Maybe he wants our pity for his poor choice in camera selection. Of course, at least he is psychic. It must be awesome to be able to look at a picture he didn't take and know EXACTLY how the skin tones should have been, or what color the grass is. Too bad he can't put this incredible ability to good use.

Besides, Russians only know about BAD optics.

Cliff. Johnston said:

Sean,

That or you just steped in it! Time to hose off our shoes.

He reminds me of another fellow that I've been verbally assaulted
by on the Professional Forum - Petteri. That troll just had a go
at me for the second time in a while. They both seem to fit the
same psychological profile. I wonder if they work for Canon and/or
have a vested interested in Canon? Surely they can't be "normal".
LOL.

Click to expand...

Cliff. Johnston said:

--
Cliff. Johnston

Click to expand...

Erik Magnuson said:

sg10 said:

Member said:

"A digital camera typically captures a raw image having a larger
color gamut (range of colors) and dynamic range (range of
brightness) than can be retained when the image is "rendered" to
form the JPEG image file." --Kodak

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

"Typically" means when converted to the sRGB color space. Note how
sRGB dominates the center graphic. This has nothing to to with
JPEG per se; it only has to do with the least common denominator
colorspace.

Click to expand...

The hit is 8-bit conversion, even the best JPEG only has 1/8192nd of the color space of the same file in true 36-bit color space.

The in a averagish SD-9 12-quality JPEG (probably around a 98 or 99, I'm guessing) has between 200K and 400K unique colors, from an 8-16M color palette (lossiness/dithering being the uncertainty).

The same image in 36-bit (in 48-bit format = 16-bit TIF) has a few million unique colors, from a palette of 68 billion. And even that's misleading, since the 36-bit file's unique colors are limited primarily by total pixel count.
--
http://www.pbase.com/imageprocessing/sd9

James Barrett wrote:
I have to say that dmitriy is right concerning the

James Barrett said:

bit depth vs. dynamic range argument.
I will try to explain a little more clearly.>
Now both RAW railways and the JPEG express travel the same
distance, from New York-- To Cali on the same track (the distance
is equivilant of dynamic range). The JPEG express makes a total of
800 stops ( equal to jpeg's 8 million different colors) on it's way
to cali. However RAW railways makes a total of 68,000 stops (equal
to RAW's 68 billion colors). So you see, even though these two
trains travel the same distance (dynamic range), you will see much
more of good ole' USA on RAW railways than I will on JPEG express
because you will stop many more times over the same distance (bit
rate).

Click to expand...

One problem with this analogy is that your stations are points with practically no spatial extent, with countryside in between. In the photographic domain however, the stops are discrete but contiguous. If you reduce the number of stops, you need to increase their size. Hence the size of the stations at your beginning and destination will eventually grow to the size of San Francisco and Seattle and beyond as you reduce the number of stations. If you decrease the number of stations and increase their size, then the distance between the terminals (dynamic range) will decrease.

Well the truth for me is I would mess up the color about 50% of the time in problems like this..it is just a limitation of my perception. I agree with you though that it is no problem to correct it (sometimes WB does it). It might be that with a little help that I would get better. I need to learn what to look for and not given I miss and have a problem identifying some shades and variations of strong colors.

Thanks for the post.

Rick

Cliff. Johnston said:

Talk about adding fuel to the fire. There's that yellow "problem"
again (in her hair this time), and the blue in the goat's eye -
obviously wrong again. Tongue-in-cheek, of course. Hmmm, I wonder
if that's a yellow-green or blue problem? Perhaps a combination?

On the serious side: if one looks at the RAW images provided on
the Sigma demo cd one can see a slight yellow-green caste to the
skin on image #12. It took me less than 15 seconds to correct for
it. That was with no previous experience with PhotoPro and no
looking at Help. At that point I had been in the program
approximately 3 minutes or so. Quite frankly I don't see what the
"problem" is. We buy the SD-9 knowing that the RAW image is the
equivalent of a flim image. I spent decades adjusting and timing
chemical developers, exposure times and papers. Now if I can do
much of the same in seconds, am I not much better off? I think so.
If I wanted a point and shoot camera I'd buy the Sony 828.

Cliff.

rick decker said:

http://www.pbase.com/image/14135357

Dmitriy Belenko said:

rick decker said:

http://www.lightreflection.com/IMG00880.X3F

http://www.lightreflection.com/IMG01442.X3F

http://www.lightreflection.com/IMG06016.X3F

aaronb said:

I have pretty much decided to scrap my 10D for an SD9. I have
downloaded SPP and processed the sample X3F files from sigma. I d
like to try some files that arent supplied by Sigma, would anyone
be kind enough to donate a file or two?? please drop me an email
--
Aaron Bass
http://www.ignition-media.net

Click to expand...

--
It's a tough job, living in Hawaii but someone has to do it!!!

.......Feel The Power.........Sigma.....SD9..........

http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.silveroaksranch.com
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
It's a tough job, living in Hawaii but someone has to do it!!!

.......Feel The Power.........Sigma.....SD9..........

http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.silveroaksranch.com
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home

Click to expand...

--
Cliff. Johnston

Click to expand...

--
It's a tough job, living in Hawaii, but someone has to do it!!!

.......Feel The Power.........Sigma.....SD9..........

http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.silveroaksranch.com
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home

Chris,

Oooh, my mother was born in Russia - her father had the good sense to get out though so I can laugh with you on that one.

Yeah, on the trolls. Well put.

Cliff.

Chris Lewis said:

Besides, Russians only know about BAD optics.

Cliff. Johnston said:

Sean,

That or you just steped in it! Time to hose off our shoes.

He reminds me of another fellow that I've been verbally assaulted
by on the Professional Forum - Petteri. That troll just had a go
at me for the second time in a while. They both seem to fit the
same psychological profile. I wonder if they work for Canon and/or
have a vested interested in Canon? Surely they can't be "normal".
LOL.

Click to expand...

Chris Lewis167065 said:

--
Cliff. Johnston

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Cliff. Johnston

Brian Slater said:

One problem with this analogy is that your stations are points with
practically no spatial extent, with countryside in between. In the
photographic domain however, the stops are discrete but contiguous.
If you reduce the number of stops, you need to increase their size.
Hence the size of the stations at your beginning and destination
will eventually grow to the size of San Francisco and Seattle and
beyond as you reduce the number of stations. If you decrease the
number of stations and increase their size, then the distance
between the terminals (dynamic range) will decrease.

Click to expand...

They're exactly like the train stations. "Discrete but contiguous" is an oxymoron. No matter what you do with train stations the distance between Seattle and LA will NOT decrease.

Get some common sense people!

The dynamic range of raw capture can indeed be wider than that of a JPEG picture. The problem is, the image doesn't look any good on the screen or on the printout unless you compress the extremes of this dynamic range (much like what happens with film). "Compress" in this case has nothing to do with reduction in size but instead means the extreme low and extreme high ranges of the image get "jammed" into a narrower dynamic range by an S-curve. You'd be surprised how bad a raw decoded image looks if this type of compression is not performed.

In other words, the moment you open your raw image in PhotoPro these curves are applied so that the image wouldn't look dark, poorly color separated and washed out. As a result of application of these curves you see the image on your monitor the way you like it. The dynamic range of your monitor is fixed, BTW, so properly exposed SD9 and 10D images will have the same dynamic range when displayed on screen. The dynamic range of the printing machines (no matter which), is narrower than the dynamic range of the monitor and their color gamut is smaller than what's captured even in JPEG.

There IS one distinct advantage to shooting in RAW and that's what Kodak was talking about. Let's say your shot is over or underexposed. Then you have this "exposure latitude" which is achieved by tweaking the "S curves" I was telling you about towards more compression in the highlights or shadows. The more dynamic range your sensor has, the more latitude you'll have.

Now if you have a properly exposed JPEG, you don't care about exposure latitude, because you don't need to adjust anything.

I challenge you to tell the difference between two large prints from X3F file converted to TIFF and JPEG in a blind test. If your assumptions about the dynamic range is correct (and they aren't) you'll be able to tell the difference. The thing is, you WON'T be able to tell the difference.

:0)

Man, I really enjoy my educational superiority. 6 years well spent.

Dmitriy Belenko said:

Dmitriy Belenko said:

One problem with this analogy is that your stations are points with
practically no spatial extent, with countryside in between. In the
photographic domain however, the stops are discrete but contiguous.
If you reduce the number of stops, you need to increase their size.
Hence the size of the stations at your beginning and destination
will eventually grow to the size of San Francisco and Seattle and
beyond as you reduce the number of stations. If you decrease the
number of stations and increase their size, then the distance
between the terminals (dynamic range) will decrease.

Click to expand...

They're exactly like the train stations. "Discrete but contiguous"
is an oxymoron. No matter what you do with train stations the
distance between Seattle and LA will NOT decrease.

Get some common sense people!

Click to expand...

I will allow for the probability that you are not a native speaker. However, despite your advanced degrees you do not understand the meaning of the words I posted. Here are dictionary definitions of contiguous and discrete:

con·tig·u·ous
being in actual contact : touching along a boundary or at a point

dis·crete
constituting a separate entity : individually distinct

So, contiguous but discrete is NOT an oxymoron, but precisely defines my meaning.

The luminance values are not continuous (note the spelling), yet they are contiguous. As the number of luminance classes decreases, the size or range of each individual class increases.

In the analogy, a constant distance between the two cities assumes that a station is infinitely small compared to the total distance. However, if you increase the size of the station sufficiently, then it is no longer correct to say that the distance between the terminals is the same as the distance between their bounded outer edges.

You should now measure the distance between the terminal cities by a parameter such as the centroid. The reduction in the distance between the terminals may become significant if the size increases sufficiently.

Whether or not the reduction in distance or the analogous reduction in dynamic range is significant, depends on the number of stations or steps and their size.

I am not claiming that the reduction is necessarily large or even visible in most cases, but your claim that there is absolutely no relationship between dynamic range and bit depth is not correct.

Poor guy.

Chris Lewis said:

Poor guy.

Click to expand...

Indeed. A troll in shining armor, on a mission to save the world from hepatitis.

No matter what you do with train stations the

Dmitriy Belenko said:

distance between Seattle and LA will NOT decrease.

Get some common sense people!

Click to expand...

Imagine in the twenty-second century San Francisco and Seattle have grown so much that they are a conurbation (analogous to sg10's question of converting to black and white). Your address is either San Francisco or Seattle. The cities are contiguous but discrete! You can get from one to the other just by crossing the street. Are you still arguing that the distance between San Francisco and Seattle has not changed?

6 years at a 2 year community college. All that hard work finally paid off huh?

Unfortunatly, your education taught you nothing about photography. Spending your time reviewing colors in images does not help you to produce good images. Obviously, people with superior educations in psychic almost always go on to be a software engineer like yourself, as it is the most logical choice. So....feel free to continue applying your vast knowledge of psychics to colors on cameras that you don't even own, as I'm sure it helps you to overcome your insecurities. And please post more images with what you think are good colors but any 6 year old could have composed.

Dmitriy Belenko said:

:0)

Man, I really enjoy my educational superiority. 6 years well spent.

Click to expand...