Reading mode: Light Dark

f828 noise is awful!

Go to last post
3 people have told you your monitor is not right....and the black yarn lacks features i Never said it was solid black. Where do you come up with these exaggerations???

Also, you started saying to Vaughn use curves and luminosity in ps......what??? Do you ever post web pics for viewing or do you expect viewers to take them into ps7 and use curves and luminosity.

I'm done responding to you.

You are a nut case.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=6143933
Matthew Cromer said:
Ron Parr said:
Matthew Cromer said:
The dynamic range is there, as is the detail. On this one picture
the curve applied is too contrasty so you can't see the details in
the blacks on certain monitors with muddy dark values.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you may not understand what dynamic range is.
Click to expand...
By
Matthew Cromer said:
definition, you can't increase noise w/o decreasing dynamic range -
unless you simultaneously increase the capacity of the pixels to
hold charge, but there's no evidence that this has occurred.

You can lighten up the black yarn, but noise starts creeping in.
Click to expand...
MAC was complaining that the yarn was solid black. It was
extremely easy to lighten the yarn and see a lot of detail without
any particular amount of noise. This was due to a rather contrasty
curve applied (probably by the original photographer choosing a
"high contrast" setting).

It sounds like you might not understand the difference between poor
dynamic range and a contrasty curve applied to the image.

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/favorite_work
Click to expand...
--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com
 
Read these two posts, you are continually "wrong" and "boring me".

I'm out of here.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=6148056

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=6144043
MAC said:
Also, you started saying to Vaughn use curves and luminosity in
ps......what??? Do you ever post web pics for viewing or do you
expect viewers to take them into ps7 and use curves and luminosity.

I'm done responding to you.

You are a nut case.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=6143933
Matthew Cromer said:
Ron Parr said:
Matthew Cromer said:
The dynamic range is there, as is the detail. On this one picture
the curve applied is too contrasty so you can't see the details in
the blacks on certain monitors with muddy dark values.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you may not understand what dynamic range is.
Click to expand...
By
MAC said:
definition, you can't increase noise w/o decreasing dynamic range -
unless you simultaneously increase the capacity of the pixels to
hold charge, but there's no evidence that this has occurred.

You can lighten up the black yarn, but noise starts creeping in.
Click to expand...
MAC was complaining that the yarn was solid black. It was
extremely easy to lighten the yarn and see a lot of detail without
any particular amount of noise. This was due to a rather contrasty
curve applied (probably by the original photographer choosing a
"high contrast" setting).

It sounds like you might not understand the difference between poor
dynamic range and a contrasty curve applied to the image.

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/favorite_work
Click to expand...
--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com
Click to expand...
--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com
 
Matthew Cromer said:
Ron Parr said:
Matthew Cromer said:
The claims that ISO values are off by a factor of 3 is very
controversial.
Click to expand...
Identify the flaw in Phil's tests.
Click to expand...
I never saw a test where he directly compared the 3 cameras for ISO.
Click to expand...
Read the 300D review to note the difference in sensitivity between G5 and 300D. Read the G5 review to note the difference in sensitivity between G5 and V1.
Matthew Cromer said:
My test will be relatively simple -- set the cameras to the same
aperture value and ISO and see what the shutter speeds come up with
identical compositions. I'll use the default matrix metering for
both cameras and check out a number of compositions.
Click to expand...
This is a flawed test for multiple reasons:

1. It's not possible to achieve identical compositions because the aspect ratios differ.

2. Matrix metering tries to guess what things in the scene need to be exposed properly. Differences in exposure may correspond to differences in the implementation of matrix metering and not differences in sensitivity.

You should put the cameras in modes that will depend upon specific properties of the scene and then point them at a large area of uniform brightness.
Matthew Cromer said:
I expect them to meter fairly equivalent exposures, but I'll let
everyone know the results.
Click to expand...
Why would you expect this? Do you not believe Phil's tests?

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
 
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