Dimitris Servis

Lives in Switzerland Switzerland
Has a website at www.coloraberration.com
Joined on Sep 27, 2009

Comments

Total: 173, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1355 comments in total)
In reply to:

String: Well I look at it as it's far far more affordable for the "average Joe" to pay $10/month for LR/PS than it ever was to buy the stand alone versions of both products and then pay for upgrades every year. One of the main reasons Adobe went to a subscription model was due to PS being one of the most pirated pieces of software ever made. And it worked, Adobes profits are higher than they ever have been.

People in these forums complain about paying $10/month for software yet have no issue with dropping thousands of dollars annually for each iteration of new body that comes out

"People in these forums complain about paying $10/month for software yet have no issue with dropping thousands of dollars annually for each iteration of new body that comes out"

It's called utility, the basis of capitalism.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 08:40 UTC
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1355 comments in total)
In reply to:

String: Well I look at it as it's far far more affordable for the "average Joe" to pay $10/month for LR/PS than it ever was to buy the stand alone versions of both products and then pay for upgrades every year. One of the main reasons Adobe went to a subscription model was due to PS being one of the most pirated pieces of software ever made. And it worked, Adobes profits are higher than they ever have been.

People in these forums complain about paying $10/month for software yet have no issue with dropping thousands of dollars annually for each iteration of new body that comes out

The way it currently works, people like myself that don't need PS for 99.9% of their work are forced to finance those that use it, so they don't have to pay $1000. I somehow don't think I will take this deal...

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 08:27 UTC
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1355 comments in total)

Yes. Bye bye LR.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 08:23 UTC as 271st comment
In reply to:

Dimitris Servis: It seems to be extremely difficult for people to grasp the simple fact that f2.8 @ 1/1000 is the same EV regardless of the format.

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

Back from a business trip, with lots of idle time, which alloed me to answer to you at that time.

"But the single greatest factor in the noisiness of a photo is how much light the photo is made from"

1. How do you define the noisiness of a photo?
2. What is the mechanism that connects the definition of noise in (1) with how much light the photo is made from under the assumption that it is captured by an array of nxn independent pixels connected to off-chip amplifiers?

Some thought experiments:

1. Use a D800 once with a 50 1.4 and once a 35 1.8. How do the two images compare with respect to your noise metric? How do they compare to a D7000+35 1.8?

2. How does a theoretical 4/3 6,549 x 4,912 image compare to the 7,360 x 4,912 D800 image relative to your noise metric?

3. As a frequent user of a D750 and an Om-d Em5 mk ii how are the variables available to me before taking a picture affected by your metric? How does your metric manfest itself in my A3+ prints?

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2017 at 15:19 UTC
In reply to:

Dimitris Servis: It seems to be extremely difficult for people to grasp the simple fact that f2.8 @ 1/1000 is the same EV regardless of the format.

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

@Richard

Thanks but you are talking about the pixel level or local averaging.

I will stick to the

"If you wanted to be obsessive about it, you could conclude that total available light represents the opportunity for one system to make a cleaner image than another, rather than its ability."

Makes sense to me.

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2017 at 10:07 UTC
In reply to:

Dimitris Servis: It seems to be extremely difficult for people to grasp the simple fact that f2.8 @ 1/1000 is the same EV regardless of the format.

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

@antisthenes I am sorry. You have no clue what you are talking about.

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2017 at 10:04 UTC
In reply to:

Dimitris Servis: It seems to be extremely difficult for people to grasp the simple fact that f2.8 @ 1/1000 is the same EV regardless of the format.

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

It's not all ;-)

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2017 at 06:50 UTC
In reply to:

Dimitris Servis: It seems to be extremely difficult for people to grasp the simple fact that f2.8 @ 1/1000 is the same EV regardless of the format.

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

@Great it's hard, I know.... :( go back to your group, hide behind the others, it will help immensely being with institutionalized peers....

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2017 at 05:59 UTC
In reply to:

Dimitris Servis: It seems to be extremely difficult for people to grasp the simple fact that f2.8 @ 1/1000 is the same EV regardless of the format.

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

You could not find a more vocal advocate than me to the fact that more information available to the system opens up huge potential for better post-processing. Placing the correct boundaries to the system though is critical. Also this is a wish that your beloved camera manufacturer does something consistent with this extra information not something the photographer can control or understand.

That said, we have far more tools than "basic statistics", descriptive or not, to infer models from our raw data and I can assure you there are plenty of papers on the subject but probably go under the radars. And because it goes far beyond "basic statistics" it can take advantage of more than the averaging of nearby pixels, which is why the larger sensor *could* (and I hope) has an advantage over the smaller one.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2017 at 05:42 UTC
In reply to:

Dimitris Servis: It seems to be extremely difficult for people to grasp the simple fact that f2.8 @ 1/1000 is the same EV regardless of the format.

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

@Richard

"I don't think people write papers on basic statistics. Noise statistics and the way noise is reduced by combining adjacent pixels probably isn't an area that you could get papers published."

Now we are getting there: so what you are saying is that your total light theory is based on the premise that there are some "statistics" done >>>>>>after<<<<<<< the light is captured by the sensor. Therefore this has nothing to do with the sensor, let alone with an elusive total light having some impact on "visual" properties, but with the processing of the signal in downstream units. In other words, you are talking about the performance of the optical system built around the sensor, not the sensor itself.

Thank you for proving them wrong.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2017 at 05:41 UTC
In reply to:

Dimitris Servis: It seems to be extremely difficult for people to grasp the simple fact that f2.8 @ 1/1000 is the same EV regardless of the format.

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

@Antisthenes

I know it's hard for you to read, but here's what the next sentence says:

" If a pixel receives an amount of photons, equal to lph during the exposure time, then this value lph is the average value, that is also characterized by a noise component rph, representing the photon shot noise."

So of course, the good scientist is talking about the pixel .Not the sensor. Nowhere does it mention "total light" or that there's a sensor property that depends on it.

So give it a better try next time

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2017 at 05:27 UTC
In reply to:

Dimitris Servis: It seems to be extremely difficult for people to grasp the simple fact that f2.8 @ 1/1000 is the same EV regardless of the format.

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

@Richard total available light is a nice twist, makes room for technology to play a role. What the photographylife article is talking about. And it's not altering a property of the sensor.

It all boils down to this: if total available light is a thing, there's an underlying mechanism that relates all pixels together and because the total available light is higher, the noise level is lower. This should have been documented in numerous papers. I have access to almost every scientific journal. So drop me a link.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2017 at 20:49 UTC
In reply to:

Dimitris Servis: It seems to be extremely difficult for people to grasp the simple fact that f2.8 @ 1/1000 is the same EV regardless of the format.

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

Hi @Great

I find it hard to understand why the odd folk in here think I should be afraid to ask questions or ashamed if I am wrong. You should work on that with some professional help.

You made a wrong statement, you find it hard to admit it - or at least that you do not know: there is no sensor property that depends on the signal.

Further, please do produce a scientific paper that relates total light to noise performance apart from speculation in photography fora full of nutcases and I will happily admit my mistake. It's simple, isn't it? All that I have found relates photons/squm to pixel performance. Do come up with one, sciencedirect should be full of it right?

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2017 at 20:14 UTC
In reply to:

Dimitris Servis: It seems to be extremely difficult for people to grasp the simple fact that f2.8 @ 1/1000 is the same EV regardless of the format.

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

@Great

yup, my point exactly. There's no sensor visual [sic] property that is affected by total light. In all three links the only sensible reference to total light is: "And this means that, for the same shutter speed, F-number and ISO, the camera with the largest sensor will have more total light to measure." The rest is - thus far, unless someone produces a nice theory with equations and such - speculation and relates to image properties, not sensor.

If you want to learn more read some stuff in the following links:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4026232
https://photographylife.com/sensor-crop-factors-and-equivalence

and for some meaningful equations

http://www.strollswithmydog.com/what-is-exposure/

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2017 at 19:48 UTC
In reply to:

Dimitris Servis: It seems to be extremely difficult for people to grasp the simple fact that f2.8 @ 1/1000 is the same EV regardless of the format.

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

Antisthenes, thanks for explaining, insulting and presuming who I am and what I know, this is very thoughtful. Still you are unable to show how the total light falling on the sensor is a thing.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2017 at 05:51 UTC
In reply to:

Dimitris Servis: It seems to be extremely difficult for people to grasp the simple fact that f2.8 @ 1/1000 is the same EV regardless of the format.

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

John, the overall noise in a final output print is not a visual property of the sensor. It's a visual property of the final print.

I am still waiting for Richard or Great to come up with a property of the sensor that is affected by the total light falling on the sensor. Or any case where the signal affects properties of the sensor.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2017 at 05:47 UTC
In reply to:

Dimitris Servis: It seems to be extremely difficult for people to grasp the simple fact that f2.8 @ 1/1000 is the same EV regardless of the format.

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

Or what? I'll be shamed?

Why don't we just enumerate the sensor visual properties that depend on the total amount of light?

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2017 at 19:01 UTC
In reply to:

Dimitris Servis: It seems to be extremely difficult for people to grasp the simple fact that f2.8 @ 1/1000 is the same EV regardless of the format.

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

Yep

"The total amount of light falling on the sensor plays no role in the visual properties of the sensor"

I hereby declare this in public.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2017 at 18:28 UTC
In reply to:

Dimitris Servis: It seems to be extremely difficult for people to grasp the simple fact that f2.8 @ 1/1000 is the same EV regardless of the format.

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

Which plays no role whatsoever, thank you.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2017 at 15:51 UTC

It seems to be extremely difficult for people to grasp the simple fact that f2.8 @ 1/1000 is the same EV regardless of the format.

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

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2017 at 11:18 UTC as 14th comment | 36 replies
Total: 173, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »