Color science between Velvia 50 and Velvia 100 is the same. It is also the same for Provia and Astia. Renditions of any given scene is different for different films. Depending on the scene, light, taste one may prefer one emulsion over the others.
Actually a very high percentage of people do leave cameras in auto everything and use out of camera JPG. Where ‘taste’ comes into it they might pick a scene mode. Eliminate the 2 or 3% of ‘photographers’ from Instagram and what’s left will clearly show the point.
If you shoot raw and use the manufacturer's processing software, the same colour technology that goes into producing in-camera JPEGs will be preserved.
Just because not in your way.I did not mention any brand in my post...I said the test told us nothing. It was not credable, nor was it really scientific.That is a typical downplaying of a creditable and scientific test to 'useless' when the test not favor someone's brand, further prove unconditional brand bias.Nope. In the first part he is specifically testing FOR bias and that test was very interesting. In the second part he tried to test and take any potential bias out. Of course, bias is a part of human nature and is impossible to fully remove, so it cannot render tests uselessUnfortunately, anything that introduces the possibility of bias in the results renders the "test" useless.Yes, this was interesting.
My interpretation is that a lot of the participants figured that Fuji was the most likely winner, based on reputation, and therefore put them last in their rankings.
That is, Fuji got most 'hate' because more people were worried that Fuji would win - its a mark of respect I guess
Putting random brands on the pictures was pretty clever.
You show exactly bias against Sony.
That's a justification of the test being relevant for those who doesn't pursue photography as art, and don't even make a tiny effort.
Do you suggest that color models (things that they call "color science" here) are the same between the brands, or even within the brand? Even observer functions in use (that's a term, https://www.rit.edu/cos/colorscience/re_AsanoObserverFunctions.php and similar) are different. Customization ("looks") are very much different.
It debunks nothing. Start here: how people were invited to take the poll? Is it quite random? Next question: why would I take the poll if it is suggested by somebody whom I know to be biased? Next question: monitor calibrations and profiling. Suppose, Sony tailored the default rendition to a typical over-brightened bluish consumer monitor, would that matter? They may be right in doing so, addressing the crowd, but my monitor is not one of those, and I don't care for a pleasant look under such conditions. If I need it, I can convert good color to account for such conditions myself.
Not so small. Some CFAs result 75-80 dB SNR, some - only in 55-60 dB. You can read some of the publications by Fujifilm EM (FFEM) on this topic.
That's what the poll and the video is about, out of camera jpgs.
Please watch the video again thoroughly. You don't get it. TN actually didn't talk colors but the myth of one brand has better than another in colors, and effectively proved it's largely people's perception on brand bias.
So you don't know what you are talking about ;-)
Why you even posting into this thread on the subject you don't know as have not watched the video?
You do know he shoots these videos using Fuji kit don’t you?
I don't care what kit it is.
Why do you hate Fuji color so much?
I don't like the color on the video. It has everything to do with ho the light and camera are set, and with grading. It has very little to do with the camera.
Yes, M-me Clinton is the President.
I don't know about that. I really don't know about that. Nobody could turn a Velvia into a Kodachrome--and they tried, lots of times, believe me.
I'm seeing a lot of whine experts. Is that what you meant?
You really don't know about that. CFAs are not emulsions. Adobe gives you similar renditions from different cameras, same as many other converters do.
Like rinse and repeat, right? It helps, if done the right way in the right place. This is neither. To understand why, look at the emulsion composition and development.
Sorry, I don't. Humans are not that stupid.
You're mistaken--very mistaken!
Well, if some of Northrup's detractors are any guide, they just might be.
So, you are saying CFAs are emulsions. That's a relief, I now know not to talk to you.
No, you got it all wrong--again!
