HumanTarget

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jan 11, 2011

Comments

Total: 41, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article Sigma SD Quattro H Review (643 comments in total)
In reply to:

Amnon G: What I don't get is the quickly degrading high ISO performance. Is the sensor itself (or the layers) not up to par with other manufacturer sensors (like the ubiquitous Sony sensors, for example) or is it an inherent problem in layering the RGB sensors?
Just look at ISO 1600 and it's a mess. 3200 and 6400? Forget about it.
Great SNR in good light is becoming less and less a worthy trick, no matter what the sensor size is. At least for me as much as I like the idea of losing the demosaic algorithms of all other sensors I cherish the flexibility of taking photos in less than ideal light without setting up lights, which I suspect most people appreciate higher ISO performance over ideal-light performance.

A big limitation of the Foveon design is that it can't do correlated double sampling, which can really help reduce system noise.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 21:34 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: the Nikon D80 (246 comments in total)
In reply to:

MrBrightSide: Colors are SO much nicer than CMOS cameras, but can anyone explain why?

Yes, I'd be interested in seeing a comparison, as well. But I'd particularly be interested in how much is actually due to a change in color filter and how much is due to a change in image processing.

But I suppose "better color" is too subjective for their to really reach a definitive answer.

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2017 at 12:15 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: the Nikon D80 (246 comments in total)
In reply to:

MrBrightSide: Colors are SO much nicer than CMOS cameras, but can anyone explain why?

I think the whole "old cameras had better color" thing is overblown. I doubt anyone could tell the difference in a "blind" test. In fact, I recall someone posting a series of the same scene shot with different cameras (some old CCD, some new CMOS), and nobody could identify which came from what type of camera.

The perceived difference is as likely due to changes in JPEG processing engines as anything.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2017 at 23:48 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: the Nikon D80 (246 comments in total)
In reply to:

MrBrightSide: Colors are SO much nicer than CMOS cameras, but can anyone explain why?

It does not matter if light is subdivided. For any given view size, the smaller pixels will either take up less of the image, which means each requires less light, or will (at low resolution outputs) be combined together, acting as larger pixels. Big pixels only have an advantage at extremely low light levels, and even there they're losing ground as technology progresses.

The filters seem to have changed to prioritize low light performance over color fidelity, but to think that old, big pixels are better than the newer small pixels is absurd. There have been a lot of advancements since the D80 came out.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2017 at 03:23 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: the Nikon D80 (246 comments in total)
In reply to:

MrBrightSide: Colors are SO much nicer than CMOS cameras, but can anyone explain why?

@fPrime, each pixel may gather less light, but there are more pixels, so overall the same amount of light is collected (actually more in the newer sensors, as they use new and improved designs). You've fallen into the classic trap of looking at pixels rather than images. Sensor designers would not continue to shrink pixel sizes if it were detrimental to image quality!

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2017 at 22:07 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: the Nikon D80 (246 comments in total)
In reply to:

MrBrightSide: Colors are SO much nicer than CMOS cameras, but can anyone explain why?

@fPrime, are you implying that the old CMOS cameras were more sensitive to light than their modern replacements?

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2017 at 17:47 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: the Nikon D80 (246 comments in total)
In reply to:

DotCom Editor: I have a friend who still uses a D40x — and still get great results.

CCD sensor development hasn't stopped; it's still used in some scientific/industrial cases. CMOS is just a better solution for general photography.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2017 at 17:31 UTC
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: You can see the effect of Hard Global Shutter in the opening battle sequence of "Gladiator"... particularly the sword hand to hand combat.

A quick eye will see all the minute details of Russel Crowe's battle gear, and the droplets of blood spurting from the hackings and slashings, blood splashes are shown as globules instead of just a red blur.

.

Film does not have a global shutter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_disc_shutter

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2016 at 21:49 UTC
On article Microsoft Lumia 950 camera review (122 comments in total)
In reply to:

faithblinded: The word 'and' is not a replacement for the period. This article is a non-stop barrage of run on sentences, and awkward wording. If this place isn't going to be subjected to the same editing process as DPR, then the articles should not be linked there. It was a struggle to read even the conclusion page of this review.

What are you talking about? It didn't strike me that way. Any specific examples?

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2016 at 13:21 UTC
In reply to:

D R C: As ISO numbers are getting so large is it not time to revert to the old DIN numbers?
For those who are too young to remember DIN numbers: ISO 400 = 27 DIN and each DIN number was a 1/3 of a f stop.
The use of DIN numbers would allow very sensitive sensors to be rated with a two digit number, that would mean that you would could go 24 stops faster than 400 ISO and still be in double figures!

ISO has a logarithmic scale. It's just not used very often.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2016 at 14:30 UTC
On article Fujifilm FinePix S1 real-world sample gallery posted (41 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dpreviewmember: Fuji doesn't understand the market for bridge cams !

After shotting a lot with my Fuji HS20 and HS50 bridge cams, only in 8MP mode, (16MP EXR 1/2" sensor) I wouldn't expect anything but awful IQ for the S1's 16MP 1/2.3" even at 50% crops as is definitely confirmed by these samples. Unless you are an impressionist artist and enjoy mushy pictures ;-)

Why camera manufacturers don't realize that 16MP is a lot for a sensor of this size, 8MP would give better IQ specially in low light, faster processing of files and would be perfect for small to medium size prints as well as showing on 2MP fullHD and 4K TVs/monitors, which is what most buyers of this kind of cam actually do. So why insisting on MP counts ?

Depends how you look at it. I'd prefer my sensors to out-resolve the lens, and I prefer the natural blurring of diffraction to pixelation at large viewing sizes. It may just be a marketing ploy (wouldn't surprise me, really), but I don't think 16MP is ridiculous.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2015 at 03:13 UTC
On article Fujifilm FinePix S1 real-world sample gallery posted (41 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dpreviewmember: Fuji doesn't understand the market for bridge cams !

After shotting a lot with my Fuji HS20 and HS50 bridge cams, only in 8MP mode, (16MP EXR 1/2" sensor) I wouldn't expect anything but awful IQ for the S1's 16MP 1/2.3" even at 50% crops as is definitely confirmed by these samples. Unless you are an impressionist artist and enjoy mushy pictures ;-)

Why camera manufacturers don't realize that 16MP is a lot for a sensor of this size, 8MP would give better IQ specially in low light, faster processing of files and would be perfect for small to medium size prints as well as showing on 2MP fullHD and 4K TVs/monitors, which is what most buyers of this kind of cam actually do. So why insisting on MP counts ?

You need 8MP for a full 2MP of data. Studies have shown images downsampled from higher resolution sources can look better than images at a lower native resolution. The manufacturers know what they're doing.

And you can get better results from a high-res JPEG with more compression than a low-res one with less, as JPEG compression works better than simple pixel binning.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2015 at 14:35 UTC
In reply to:

photofan1986: Images look good, for sure, but I see that as an amateur photographer, I really don't want a über-high megapixel camera.

@AlanG:
I get that, but you can just as easily look closely at a smaller print, as well. It seems silly to me to fault a camera for being able to print larger. A lot of the talk here seems to imply (whether intended or not) that higher resolution is somehow a disadvantage.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2015 at 22:02 UTC
In reply to:

photofan1986: Images look good, for sure, but I see that as an amateur photographer, I really don't want a über-high megapixel camera.

Why should having more resolution ever detract more from an image? Missed focus or shakiness may limit the usefulness of the extra resolution, but it's not going to detract any more compared to a lower-resolution image viewed at the same size.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2015 at 18:27 UTC
In reply to:

photofan1986: Images look good, for sure, but I see that as an amateur photographer, I really don't want a über-high megapixel camera.

"...the higher the resolution, the lower the threshold of tolerance would be, imo."

That's an odd concept, in my opinion. Why do you feel that should be the case?

Link | Posted on May 14, 2015 at 18:42 UTC
On article Canon EOS 5DS R added to studio test scene comparison (503 comments in total)
In reply to:

naththo: Significant amount of pixelation and aliasing in those samples. 35mm sensor are not meant to have much more than 20mp at least. Its way too much mp cramming into 35mm sensor is not good things. You need at least medium format to do 50mp or so which will show much clean image look. I compared to Phase One, Phase One came out much clean sample to compare with hardly much aliasing at all.

You must be comparing at 100%, which is the wrong way to go about things; you must compare at equal sizes. Set the image size to "print" in the studio compare tool for a better comparison.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2015 at 18:18 UTC
On article Canon EOS 5DS R added to studio test scene comparison (503 comments in total)
In reply to:

naththo: Significant amount of pixelation and aliasing in those samples. 35mm sensor are not meant to have much more than 20mp at least. Its way too much mp cramming into 35mm sensor is not good things. You need at least medium format to do 50mp or so which will show much clean image look. I compared to Phase One, Phase One came out much clean sample to compare with hardly much aliasing at all.

What are you talking about? More megapixels reduces aliasing and pixelation. Aliasing is all about not having enough resolution.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2015 at 14:06 UTC
In reply to:

Karroly: You forget to say that increasing the diameter of the "tubes" is like waiting longer under the rain : this will increase and make more equal the number of raindrops caught by each tube, thus reducing the "signal-to-noise" ratio. For sensors, it means, putting aside electronic noise, bigger pixels will catch more photons and average the random nature of light you are talking about here.

This is why, given the same resolution, a big sensor with big pixels will ALWAYS be better in (extremely ?) low light than a small sensor, even though there were no electronic (or thermal) noise at all...

However, in practice, the true question is, and your article does not give an answer, under which pixel size and scene brightness, does a pixel catch too few photons so that the difference between adjacent pixels becomes noticable ?
Is this "noise" greater or smaller than the electronic or thermal noise ?
In other terms, do we really have to care with the random nature of photons with today sensors ?

Okay, I see now that I've been misunderstanding what you've been saying!

Link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 19:37 UTC
In reply to:

Karroly: You forget to say that increasing the diameter of the "tubes" is like waiting longer under the rain : this will increase and make more equal the number of raindrops caught by each tube, thus reducing the "signal-to-noise" ratio. For sensors, it means, putting aside electronic noise, bigger pixels will catch more photons and average the random nature of light you are talking about here.

This is why, given the same resolution, a big sensor with big pixels will ALWAYS be better in (extremely ?) low light than a small sensor, even though there were no electronic (or thermal) noise at all...

However, in practice, the true question is, and your article does not give an answer, under which pixel size and scene brightness, does a pixel catch too few photons so that the difference between adjacent pixels becomes noticable ?
Is this "noise" greater or smaller than the electronic or thermal noise ?
In other terms, do we really have to care with the random nature of photons with today sensors ?

What threw me of was when you said "No, you are wrong because you do not compare apple with apple. And the apple here is resolution. My hypothesis was : "given the SAME RESOLUTION, a big sensor with big pixels..." in reply to me talking about combining pixels of the sensor with more resolution. I assumed you were disagreeing with me, but it seems you were not?

Link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 13:04 UTC
Total: 41, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »