HowaboutRAW

Joined on Sep 1, 2011

Comments

Total: 17792, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Google Pixel 2 sample gallery (51 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: So does this smartphone camera not shoot raw? Hint.

noisephotographer:

HDR requires multiple images, that's a handicap. And basically makes HDR assemblies unusable in many situations.

You don't know much about digital photography.

Having to use 3rd party applications for shooting raw is mostly an Apple iPhone thing.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 15:23 UTC
On article Google Pixel 2 sample gallery (51 comments in total)

So does this smartphone camera not shoot raw? Hint.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 14:32 UTC as 17th comment | 4 replies
On article Take a look inside Leica's factory in Wetzlar, Germany (55 comments in total)
In reply to:

steelhead3: Nice write up Barney...does DXO or Lensrental do any Leica lens testing?

Yes.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 14:20 UTC
In reply to:

Jumpster: Just used my new IPhone 8 at the lake. ALL HDR pictures were completely worthless.
How do I attach photo?

Upload the iPhone samples, the ones that demonstrate the problem, to your gallery. Use full resolution. There's no raw/DNG option.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 23:11 UTC

So Imaging Resource posted raws (DNGs) and they look horrid, even at ISO 160.

The white wall in the IR studio scene has lots of colour blotching. And no the chroma/color slider doesn't remove that mess.

(This white wall, for those unfamiliar with the IR studio scene, is well illuminated and is the last area of the image to show noise when running up the ISO scale.)

These DNGs look like out of camera jpegs from a 2007 compact set to ISO 640.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 23:08 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Why so few unlossy compressed raws?

Even with the e-shutter fully engaged the raws should be about 42MP--even if they're only 12 bits.

Also which files were mechanical shutter, e-first curtain, and full e shutter?

brendon:

No, you lied and claimed Iied that I not shared any photos.

Included amongst your "points" was the perfectly valid one that I will not be sharing raws. However you implied my raws don't exist, this is another failure of yours.

So it's pretty easy to disprove your claim.

Now regards, McDonald's burgers, you invented (lied) something I never said. And implied that I think all lossy raws are useless.

Really keep posting your ignorance of logic and English, it so helps your ostensible case.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 20:49 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Why so few unlossy compressed raws?

Even with the e-shutter fully engaged the raws should be about 42MP--even if they're only 12 bits.

Also which files were mechanical shutter, e-first curtain, and full e shutter?

brendon1000:

"you basically agreed with everything I said !" Well, if you want to lie, sure then I "agreed".

You still don't know the what the word "any" means, nor does it appear that you know the definition of the verb "to agree", more importantly you don't understand what "everything" signifies.

Not laughing at your illiteracy, or is it a propensity to lie?

Additionally wrong, lossy raws can look perfectly good. While McDonald's ersatz hamburgers only visually resemble that food in taste.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 13:01 UTC
In reply to:

Shurato: Ok, now that's all and good and Apple did an excellent job. My main question is, what compact camera (incl 1" sensors) would offer this kind of image-quality on par with the iPhone 8s? Since I still prefer the handling of a compact camera in my hands with the buttons, dials, taking RAW picture and having it all pocketable. A compact camera coming to my mind would be "of course" Sony's RX100 IV and then again maybe I should ask/post this question in some thread like "which compact cameras can still cope with the image quality of Google's Pixel or iPhone8"?

noisephotographer:

What, have you looked at out of camera jpegs from say a Sony A6300 or Panasonic GX85?

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2017 at 17:30 UTC
In reply to:

Shurato: Ok, now that's all and good and Apple did an excellent job. My main question is, what compact camera (incl 1" sensors) would offer this kind of image-quality on par with the iPhone 8s? Since I still prefer the handling of a compact camera in my hands with the buttons, dials, taking RAW picture and having it all pocketable. A compact camera coming to my mind would be "of course" Sony's RX100 IV and then again maybe I should ask/post this question in some thread like "which compact cameras can still cope with the image quality of Google's Pixel or iPhone8"?

1 inch sensored cameras have much better IQ. So does something like a Panasonic LX5, which released in 2010.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2017 at 14:51 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Why so few unlossy compressed raws?

Even with the e-shutter fully engaged the raws should be about 42MP--even if they're only 12 bits.

Also which files were mechanical shutter, e-first curtain, and full e shutter?

Magnar W:

Missing how saying "Starbucks really isn't good coffee" is having the highest standard for coffee.

Are you implying that McDonald's even sells anything like a hamburger. Of course they don't --even if the object is visually similar on the outside.

Now, if you'd stuck to my chicken point, you'd have one.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2017 at 14:35 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Why so few unlossy compressed raws?

Even with the e-shutter fully engaged the raws should be about 42MP--even if they're only 12 bits.

Also which files were mechanical shutter, e-first curtain, and full e shutter?

JoFa:

With an optically decent lens, it is possible to see the effects of Sony lossy compression, that's given a file of the same image shot both ways.

Whether or not those differences are "worth" chasing in the final production image is a different matter that I can't speak to regards a specific case. But generally, yes, if you can see it and it looks better done one way, use that method, he the uncompressed raw.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2017 at 14:26 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Why so few unlossy compressed raws?

Even with the e-shutter fully engaged the raws should be about 42MP--even if they're only 12 bits.

Also which files were mechanical shutter, e-first curtain, and full e shutter?

brendon1000:

"He doesn't show any proof to back up any of his statements."

So? I'm not sharing my raws for you to pick over? Who cares. I'm not making the claim of "it's proven", I'm claiming "it's easy enough to see if you bother to look". So get the gear and look.

Also:

"He claims to be a photographer but doesn't show any photos."

Please learn the the meaning of the word "any" ere again posting such foolishness--you come off as illiterate.

"Claims to have tested multiple cameras but doesn't show any results."

Nope, won't be sharing my raws, and you "forgot" multiple lenses.

"Basically believe his grandiose statements at your own peril cause he has zero credibility over here."

You don't have to believe me, however it doesn't mean my results don't exist and my claims aren't based on said results.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2017 at 14:21 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Why so few unlossy compressed raws?

Even with the e-shutter fully engaged the raws should be about 42MP--even if they're only 12 bits.

Also which files were mechanical shutter, e-first curtain, and full e shutter?

MyReality:

"'...IQ execution that can be readily seen.' is subjective, some may see it, some may not"

That subjective claim only works if you totally redefine the word "readily" to suit your end.

Regards Foveon files, shooting raw at a low ISO with good lenses, there sure is a notable difference.

"I am not sure, if in a blind taste test, people could tell the difference between farm raised chicken and Perdue."

I am, assuming that person is not say a vegetarian. And there's some real crap chicken sold as "free range", so that has to be excluded, or equated with Perdue basically.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2017 at 02:56 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Why so few unlossy compressed raws?

Even with the e-shutter fully engaged the raws should be about 42MP--even if they're only 12 bits.

Also which files were mechanical shutter, e-first curtain, and full e shutter?

Magnar W:

Been published in a paper you've heard of, and I've been paid for my work.

Haven't marketed my images if that's what you mean.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2017 at 00:26 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Why so few unlossy compressed raws?

Even with the e-shutter fully engaged the raws should be about 42MP--even if they're only 12 bits.

Also which files were mechanical shutter, e-first curtain, and full e shutter?

Magnar W:

"I am well used with professional photography (myself, a lot of skilled professional collegues), and I know the needs by different clients, from product photography and industrial photography, to news, portrait and fashion photography. I have never met a client that would care if the results were from cRAW or RAW files - or even jpg files. "

So? That only speaks to your experience. Thank you for the Micky D's.

"They care about content, the wow factor, and how well the pictures do communicate."

Image quality is part of that "wow factor", if you're dealing with art directors unfamiliar with this concept, then...

Starbucks is "professionally brewed coffee"; it's pretty broadly terrible.

Thanks, sarcasm, for the defense of MP3, or AAC, sound quality.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2017 at 00:17 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Why so few unlossy compressed raws?

Even with the e-shutter fully engaged the raws should be about 42MP--even if they're only 12 bits.

Also which files were mechanical shutter, e-first curtain, and full e shutter?

Magnar W:

"This "so called" term is used when you are out of arguments and when/if you want to put down or correct others."

If that assumption makes you feel more comfortable with what a professional photographer needs, or can get by with, assume away.

Think of the puzzle this way, a McDonald's hamburger, sold to you, and a hamburger made by in a restaurant kitchen out of ground beef purchased in the meat department of a local supermarket are both professionally made/cooked hamburgers. If you're a meat eater, guess which one almost assuredly tastes better?

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2017 at 00:02 UTC
In reply to:

webber15: Fuji XT2 with the XF100-400 a better rig tbh...

webber:

That Fuji zoom is optically beautiful.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 23:23 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Why so few unlossy compressed raws?

Even with the e-shutter fully engaged the raws should be about 42MP--even if they're only 12 bits.

Also which files were mechanical shutter, e-first curtain, and full e shutter?

Magnar W:

I'm sure you can figure it out.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 23:14 UTC
In reply to:

zakaria: 2500$!!
Is it a Zeise lens!!
Nice images BTW.

No, it is not a Zeiss or SonyZeiss.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 23:03 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Why so few unlossy compressed raws?

Even with the e-shutter fully engaged the raws should be about 42MP--even if they're only 12 bits.

Also which files were mechanical shutter, e-first curtain, and full e shutter?

Magnar W:

"And I would LOVE to see samples where such differences affect image content to such a level that one picture is great and the other is hardly useable. :-)"

Don't think you're going to find that, nor did I ever imply you would.

"I would like to see samples where the differences between compressed and non compressed raw files matters for professional photography."

Depends what you're trying to do with your so called "professional photography".

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 23:01 UTC
Total: 17792, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »