Mike Engles

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Joined on May 24, 2006

Comments

Total: 20, showing: 1 – 20
On article Sources of noise part two: Electronic Noise (234 comments in total)
In reply to:

lacikuss: I maybe mistaken but how much DR is needed to feel fully satisfied? I see most of the HDR pictures as some form of art rather than realistic photography. For instance, looking at the picture in this article IMHO it looks that the shadows have been pushed too far so it feels unrealistic to what the photographer saw when the image was captured.

Now I'm not against any DR enhancements in ACR but I firmly believe that all current sensor technologies will give you a clean noise free picture if its shadows are pushed within 2 ev and Highlight recovered within 1 ev, that will give any photographer 15 EV of DR which is absolutely fantastic.

I own current generation CANIKON gear and I see DR differences in jpegs but once I process them in ACR I get almost identical results without any excess noise. Of course I shoot Nikon at lower ISO and Canon at highest ISO for the same situation when can't use base ISO. The results are the same unless of course I'm doing HDR art.

Hello
In the old old days analogue of TV, cameras did just that. A curve was applied to the signal. If this were done in the analogue domain to the image before A/D, then you would take the infinite levels of an amplified analogue signal and get a digital image that has bits spread evenly across the range. At the moment an inverse gamma is applied to an image after A/D and this spreads the lower tones almost into banding. Further pushing of shadows, just shows the noise. To get over this you need a great number of bits, in order for the low end to have enough bits , not to show banding.
Think of this as a rubber band with marks put evenly along its length and the ends of the band set at a diagonal. Now pull the centre of the band up (Lightroom Curves) and see how the evenly spaced points become unevenly spaced. If amplication was done before the A/D, the points on the curve would be evenly spaced and even with 8 bits you could still pull the shadows, without too much degradation.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2016 at 19:43 UTC
In reply to:

sankos: A good, educational article.

Slightly OT: why "Raw files, not "raw files"? Shooting and post-processing raw files is nothing extraordinary nowadays, so the spelling should reflect that, I think.

Hello
Well TIFF files are an abbreviation of 'Tagged Image File Format' and JPEG is 'Joint Photographic Experimental Group'. NEF is something to do with Nikon, but I am not sure if RAW means anything apart from being uncooked. As far as I know an abbreviation is capitalised, but if it becomes an acronym, it need not be. The whole business is redundant anyway as most people know what these 'words' allude to. In essence do as you please.
MDE

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2016 at 16:17 UTC
In reply to:

vscd: The BEST way to prevent blown out high lights would be a RAW-based histogram. Better than any fancy algorithms... but not seen on recent cams except of some mediumformat ones >15000$ :(

Hello
I feel that the problem is because the gamma curve applied to match that of the response of the eye is applied after the A/D. This just expands the lower tones and produces posterisation because there are a finite number of tones. The curve should be applied at the analogue stage, where there are an infinite number of tones. If this capture is then digitised then the spread of tones would be even from lows to highs. Now one could intentionally under expose to preserve the highlights and any pushing of the shadows would have a minimal effect. This system would in effect mimic what used to happen in the days of analogue TV.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2016 at 16:01 UTC
In reply to:

Nobby2016: oh yeah what the world needs.. more film presets... yawn.

They are after all just simulations.
Many years ago I worked as a sound engineer and bands would ask to use our plate reverbs. So I did an experiment and set up plate reverb and a setting of a
Lexicon 224 digital ( plate reverb). I started with the real plate and as the session continued, cross faded to the Lexicon. No one had a clue!

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2016 at 16:24 UTC
In reply to:

Skipper494: All very fine, but in film days we got grain from particles in the film, nothing from die film. As an engineer with quite a lot of experience in sensor design, I can assure you that most noise comes from the proximity of photo sites, or wiring, (even poor software) which is why lower resolution large sensors have less noise and more dynamic range.

Compare the Nikon D700 and the Sony NEX 7, for instance. Consider how good the Fuji S2 Pro was in it's day. Compare a lower resolution 1/1.7 sensor with a higher resolution 1/2.33, such as the Nikon P7000 with the Pan FZ35.

Frankly, too much emphasis is put on high numbers and marketing, instead of good photography results.

Hello
I just refer you to this article on human vision
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_correction
MDE

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2015 at 21:51 UTC
In reply to:

Skipper494: All very fine, but in film days we got grain from particles in the film, nothing from die film. As an engineer with quite a lot of experience in sensor design, I can assure you that most noise comes from the proximity of photo sites, or wiring, (even poor software) which is why lower resolution large sensors have less noise and more dynamic range.

Compare the Nikon D700 and the Sony NEX 7, for instance. Consider how good the Fuji S2 Pro was in it's day. Compare a lower resolution 1/1.7 sensor with a higher resolution 1/2.33, such as the Nikon P7000 with the Pan FZ35.

Frankly, too much emphasis is put on high numbers and marketing, instead of good photography results.

Hello
The point about adding inverse gamma 2.2 (this needed for our vision) to linear data after the A/D is that those 14 or 16 bit tones in the lower greys and shadows are already very stretched, compounded by converting to 8 bit for display and printing. Adding more gamma to bring up the shadows further, makes the situation much worse. Gamma before A/D gives you the full set of tones and further gamma in digital domain is not so destructive. It also allows for more custom curves to concentrate processing on the most important areas of interest, as has already been suggested. Actually you would only need 8 bits of data to give a really large dynamic range and shadow noise almost eliminated for lower ISOs. You would not need to ETTR as all the tones would have a equal number of data points.
MDE

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2015 at 23:05 UTC
In reply to:

Skipper494: All very fine, but in film days we got grain from particles in the film, nothing from die film. As an engineer with quite a lot of experience in sensor design, I can assure you that most noise comes from the proximity of photo sites, or wiring, (even poor software) which is why lower resolution large sensors have less noise and more dynamic range.

Compare the Nikon D700 and the Sony NEX 7, for instance. Consider how good the Fuji S2 Pro was in it's day. Compare a lower resolution 1/1.7 sensor with a higher resolution 1/2.33, such as the Nikon P7000 with the Pan FZ35.

Frankly, too much emphasis is put on high numbers and marketing, instead of good photography results.

Hello
The real problem with the perception of noise is that tone curves (gamma) is applied to already quantized data. Since the image is linear any stretching using a curve will show up gaps in the data especially in shadows (where the stretching is greatest).
If the tone curve was applied to analogue data directly from the sensor, then since there are an infinite number of analogue data points any stretching would never be noticeable. If this were done the dynamic range of existing digital sensors would be quite amazing and the ability to pull up shadows would be phenomenal.
Historical note, this is how old fashioned analogue TV worked.
It is just easier and cheaper to do gamma curves in the digital domain than to build accurate analogue gamma amplifiers.
MDE

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2015 at 11:15 UTC
In reply to:

graybalanced: Like a lot of giveaways, you must first add this pack to their shopping cart, and then you can't download what's in the shopping cart unless you have or create a VSCO account with your name and email address.

This might matter if you're concerned about leaving behind your contact info for a one-time download.

Hello
When a product is 'Free', then the 'user' is the product.
MDE

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2015 at 11:58 UTC
On photo After the Rain in the Reflections II - Puddles challenge (14 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tusk24: Like this image, the reflection is well seen in the composition.
But 1/4 second handheld ?!
Is your regular job working as a brain surgeon? :)

Hello
How can I say this without seeming mean, but the boy's feet are in the water? Should there not be ripples and disturbance of the reflection?
Mike Engles

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2015 at 15:46 UTC
On article Cold War camera: 1950s Berlin in color (part 1) (122 comments in total)
In reply to:

Beat Traveller: Always enjoy these old photo galleries.

Yes
The present nearly always seems banal, as it is so familiar. Old photos are of a distant time and distance nearly always lends enchantment.
There was a set of colour pictures from prewar England that were equally enchanting
M Engles

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2014 at 17:18 UTC
On article Light Field Cameras - Focusing on the Future (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

spitfire31: "And since light field cameras capture 3D data through a single lens, it'd be much easier to shoot 3D films - all of the parallax problems presented by stereoscopic cameras would disappear."
This I don't understand. 3D is 3D BECAUSE of parallax, corresponding to roughly the distance between the eyes.

How can a single lens on a static camera provide two different viewpoints necessary for the brain to reconstruct a 3D experience?

If you close one eye, does the world go flat?
You still see depth, but the effect is not as good as with two eyes.
Our eyes/brains do the same thing.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 06:00 UTC
On article 1939: England in Color (part 2) (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

MaticB: Cool!

Picture 23, Why can I not find round specs like those?
Very nice set of images. Old pictures do not need to be 'arty', the sense of place and time is enough.
Mike

Link | Posted on May 3, 2014 at 21:51 UTC
On article Adobe leaks 'Lightroom Mobile' app (209 comments in total)
In reply to:

drshuayb: I purchased Lightroom 5 recently and I opened a few raw images of my living room on it and I have to say that canon's digital photo professional program rendered the colors (especially the leather couch) almost perfectly whereas LR gave my couch much more yellow to it than it actually is. Any suggestions please??

Hello

I do find that is a curious statement as I have just done a comparison with a virual copy. All parameters default, just varied the process version. To my eyes 2012 is much less yellow, than 2010 or 2003. Playing with the quarter tones would have no effect on the colour. a different calibration would have more effect.

Mike Engles

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2014 at 12:19 UTC
On article Photoshop Gradient Tool: Part 2 - Adjusting Images (87 comments in total)
In reply to:

Spectro: this is actually a useful article. Most of the tip article in the past yo have to dig around on this site. Most people using photoshop might already now this, but still good for beginners.

Hello

I don't think that this was mentioned, but you can use curves and levels to adjust the layer mask directly and that you can add to a layer mask by experimenting with the various gradient options like overlay and multiply.

Mike Engles

Link | Posted on May 28, 2013 at 12:09 UTC
In reply to:

Reilly Diefenbach: Now this I can see, especially for $49. Lightroom's ease of use instead of the clunky DXO interface and as good or better geometric correction. Good idea.

Hello

Thanks for your reply.
I would really like to try the plugin for Lightroom, but it will not load,see previous message.What is the name of the plugin and what folder is it in, as perhaps the installer has not actually installed the plugin?

Mike Engles

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2012 at 10:19 UTC
In reply to:

Reilly Diefenbach: Now this I can see, especially for $49. Lightroom's ease of use instead of the clunky DXO interface and as good or better geometric correction. Good idea.

Hello Olivier
Got your reply, I was looking in the wrong place.
It would be good to try out the plugin in Lightroom, but as far as i can see it does not offer any more than the correction tools in Photoshop, so would not be inclined to buy the plugin at UKP49

Mike Engles

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2012 at 12:45 UTC
In reply to:

Reilly Diefenbach: Now this I can see, especially for $49. Lightroom's ease of use instead of the clunky DXO interface and as good or better geometric correction. Good idea.

Hello Olivier

Still no message. Why not post it here? Also could you give me the folder and the name of the plugin to see if it has been installed? As I said the Photoshop plugin has been installed.

Mike Engles

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2012 at 09:54 UTC
In reply to:

Reilly Diefenbach: Now this I can see, especially for $49. Lightroom's ease of use instead of the clunky DXO interface and as good or better geometric correction. Good idea.

Hello Oliver

I have not had your reply to my emai about DXO UK pricingl.

Mike Engles

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2012 at 00:06 UTC
In reply to:

Reilly Diefenbach: Now this I can see, especially for $49. Lightroom's ease of use instead of the clunky DXO interface and as good or better geometric correction. Good idea.

Hello

No response to the above, perhaps there will be one for this.
I have installed the tryout, which works in Photoshop CS5, but get a 'error occurred while attempting to load this plugin' message.

PS OS is Win7 pro

Mike Engles

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2012 at 18:50 UTC
In reply to:

Reilly Diefenbach: Now this I can see, especially for $49. Lightroom's ease of use instead of the clunky DXO interface and as good or better geometric correction. Good idea.

Hello

It seems a Euro version is 49 Euro, but a UK version at UKP49 is the equivalent of 61 Euro, but prices include taxes.
49 Euro is actually UKP 40

Mike Engles

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2012 at 10:42 UTC
Total: 20, showing: 1 – 20