mgrum

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Joined on Jan 14, 2009

Comments

Total: 338, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

If conserving bandwidth is your goal surely a better learning based advanced compression algorithm would be much better than this?

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 10:15 UTC as 9th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

panther fan: Many have stated it already. DXOMark themself said these results are not comparable, because RED likely uses temporal noise reduction on their RAW Files.
This means they unfortunately didn't trick physics.

@zman yes there are plenty of tests they could have done to establish whether temporal noise reduction is taking place, it's a shame they didn't. The DXO Mark website is a free resource (which also serves to promote their other products), as such I wouldn't expect the same rigour as if I were paying for the data. I do find some of their data very useful, but as always you need to scrutinise the way in which it was collected.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 17:07 UTC
In reply to:

Esstee: It costs $56 000 to beat the Sony a7r II Image quality?

@quiquae

Since always - however it will only do 5fps!

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 10:50 UTC
In reply to:

justmeMN: But do DxOMark Sensor Scores reflect real world results?

The scores don't but the measurements do.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 10:49 UTC
In reply to:

iceypix: Says in DXOs blurb:
"its top-of-the-line image quality, high frame rate, and 16-bit RAW capture capability absolutely make it worth considering as a competitor to high-end DSLRs and medium-format cameras for still image capture"
does anyone use them just for a stills camera??!

Not when you can get a PhaseOne for the same money.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 10:47 UTC
In reply to:

Peiasdf: The "sport" ISO value shouldn't be counted since NR at RAW level is performed. Very impressive sensor never the less. I think give A7R II's sensor to Nikon and Pantax and they will match Helium 8K in all but "sport" ISO

@GabrielFFontes

We're actually far closer than most people realise. High ISO noise is pretty much entirely photon noise these days, and many cameras are achieving greater than 50% quantum efficiency. The RED appears to be getting greater than 100% QE, hence breaking the laws of physics - you can't convert more than all of the incoming photons to charge!

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 10:46 UTC
In reply to:

panther fan: Many have stated it already. DXOMark themself said these results are not comparable, because RED likely uses temporal noise reduction on their RAW Files.
This means they unfortunately didn't trick physics.

@Zdman

The simple answer is that temporal noise reduction is being done in camera and applied to the RAW file (this makes sense, it's best to reduce noise before compression), thus the RAW converter makes no difference.

Even if you tell the camera to shoot a single frame, there's no way of knowing whether or not it takes multiple frames and averages them.

The quality of your electronics has a strong influence on shadow noise, but in the midtones it's 99.99% photon noise, which is determined by pixel size and quantum efficiency (proportion of photons converted into charge). DXO are reporting that for pixels of that size the SNR figures are beyond what's physically possible (i.e. they seem to be achieving more than 100% QE). This means they *must* be performing noise reduction somehow, it's more than just an assumption.

Oh, and DXO have published several articles demonstrating RAW cooking with Sony and Canon previously.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 10:32 UTC
On article SLT strikes back: Sony a99 II real-world sample gallery (272 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikeF4Black: Compared to a well exposed D810 image, these high(er) ISO images are disappointing.

hmm I can't actually find an official figure from Sony - it's variously reported online to be 0.5 stops (which is just less than a third, 29%), and a third of a stop (which is 21%). Either way exteme low light performance is going to suffer compared to the best in class.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 14:07 UTC
On article SLT strikes back: Sony a99 II real-world sample gallery (272 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikeF4Black: Compared to a well exposed D810 image, these high(er) ISO images are disappointing.

STL is never going to be on the cutting edge of sensitivity as the mirror costs you 1/3 of the incoming light.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 13:01 UTC
On article Dell's 8K monitor goes on sale in March for $5000 (231 comments in total)
In reply to:

faterikcartman: Too often companies seem to make what they think they can hype to the market. While ignoring what users really want. I suppose there are users who will plant their noses a foot from this 32" monitor. But I rather not hurt my neck. Further away are you really going to see 8k resolution? Were I The Monitor King, I would be making a 4 or 5k --tops -- in this size, OLED, and brag about blacks, contrast, and uniform brightness. But I guess 8k is easier to grasp and market. Reminds me of megapixels.

@faterikcartman

> Too often companies seem to make what they think they can hype to the market. While ignoring what users really want.

It's called a halo product, it serves primarily a marketing purpose, but that means it helps them sell products that users actually want, it doesn't replace them (Dell still make <8K screens).

> Reminds me of megapixels.

In that people kept claiming that X was more than anyone would want, only to be shown by the market that they were wrong?

There's a thread on FM when the Canon D60 came out in 2002 where people were claiming they would never need 6 megapixels, which makes humorous reading now. I imagine in 15 years time this thread will be the same.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 09:30 UTC
On article Dell's 8K monitor goes on sale in March for $5000 (231 comments in total)
In reply to:

AngularJS: Sounds like a good upgrade for my 4k DCI LG 31". The price is unreasonably high though. In a year I'll buy this one or similar for $2.5k max.

@AngularJS

Actually the A7RII will cover it as they will be using the 8K UHD specification which is slightly less than 8000 horizontal pixels.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 09:09 UTC
On article Dell's 8K monitor goes on sale in March for $5000 (231 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hinder: Does this mean Sony fans will quit whining about no 4K in the Canons I use? I guess I have ammo to argue back now. Ha Ha, you're stupid Sony doesn't have 8K!

@Hinder "Does this mean Sony fans will quit whining about no 4K in the Canons I use?"

No, it just makes Canon look even more like a dinosaur in their rollout of 4K...

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 09:05 UTC
On article Dell's 8K monitor goes on sale in March for $5000 (231 comments in total)
In reply to:

faterikcartman: Too often companies seem to make what they think they can hype to the market. While ignoring what users really want. I suppose there are users who will plant their noses a foot from this 32" monitor. But I rather not hurt my neck. Further away are you really going to see 8k resolution? Were I The Monitor King, I would be making a 4 or 5k --tops -- in this size, OLED, and brag about blacks, contrast, and uniform brightness. But I guess 8k is easier to grasp and market. Reminds me of megapixels.

@utphoto "European digital cinema is still very much 2K"

It's been 4K in all the big chains for years in the UK (which will always be part of Europe geographically speaking!)

And yes I could tell the difference after the upgrade.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 08:52 UTC
On article Dell's 8K monitor goes on sale in March for $5000 (231 comments in total)

Refresh rate wouldn't be an issue for me as I'd just put one of my photos up and stare at it for hours!

The A7RII can just do the job of filling the screen (5Ds too), the A7R and D800/810 would fall slightly short due to the different aspect ratio.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 08:45 UTC as 40th comment
In reply to:

Prognathous: Nokia, be bold. Use an APS-C sensor and an f/8.0 lens. It would be pocketable (when turned off, lens retracted to phone), and image quality in daylight would be far far better than anything ever seen on a smartphones. It won't be any worse in low light too, as APS-C has about 4~5 stop advantage over cellphone sensors. f/8.0 in this case would be equivalent to a cellphone equipped with an f/2.0 or f/1.4 lens.

Also, call this model "The Weegee" (of "f/8 and Be There" fame, to those not familiar).

@Lassoni

No. 50mm is only smaller if you're designing for an SLR where the lens sits a long way from the sensor.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2016 at 12:26 UTC
In reply to:

Prognathous: Nokia, be bold. Use an APS-C sensor and an f/8.0 lens. It would be pocketable (when turned off, lens retracted to phone), and image quality in daylight would be far far better than anything ever seen on a smartphones. It won't be any worse in low light too, as APS-C has about 4~5 stop advantage over cellphone sensors. f/8.0 in this case would be equivalent to a cellphone equipped with an f/2.0 or f/1.4 lens.

Also, call this model "The Weegee" (of "f/8 and Be There" fame, to those not familiar).

@Prognathous

The Ricoh GR may well fit into a jacket pocket, but it's far thicker than people would tolerate for a phone, which is expected to fit into a much smaller trouser pocket.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 11:00 UTC

A camera centric smartphone will always be like a haulage centric motorbike - sure you might be able to carry a bit more with panniers and a box on the back, but it will be less useful as a bike and still wont be able to compete with a van.

You can only do so much with a tiny sensor, computational photography can stretch that, but only a short way - at some point you just need more photons.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 10:55 UTC as 9th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

CANUXR: Oh boy...here we go again: most posts trashing the camera.
This happens every time a new camera comes out to "threaten" [fill in the blank] brand fanboys. They will defend their system and trash whatever else that could be better.
People are already whining their 5DSR has the same resolution for half the price or their D810 has nearly the same dynamic range and similar DOF look, or their Sony has a higher resolution screen.... Sigh....
Sorry to break it to all of you but this camera will be better for stills(no action) than your canon, nikon, sony, etc.

@Androole

> Not to mention normal lenses like the Mamiya 80/1.9 for 645 (42.1mm entrance pupil), or the 105/2.4 for Pentax 67 (43.75mm entrance pupil).

Both of which fall short of the Leica Noctilux-M 50mm f/0.95 (52.6mm entrance pupil)...

> the more exotic Aero-Ektar 178/2.5 with its unbelievable 71.2mm entrance pupil.

The 71.2mm entrance pupil is not really unbelievable considering it's a military lens designed for aerial reconnaissance (imagine the specs of current military spy satellites), and it's made using thorium infused glass which reduces dispersion (much better than current low dispersion glasses).

If you limit yourself to lenses which aren't actually radioactive, you're down to things like the Schneider Xenotar 150mm f/2.8 or Zoomatar 240mm f/1.2, ultra rare lenses which are in the region of 60 years old. So it's not a particularly strong argument when you consider the variety of lenses with large entrance pupils that can be purchased new for the 35mm format.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2016 at 11:31 UTC
In reply to:

CANUXR: Oh boy...here we go again: most posts trashing the camera.
This happens every time a new camera comes out to "threaten" [fill in the blank] brand fanboys. They will defend their system and trash whatever else that could be better.
People are already whining their 5DSR has the same resolution for half the price or their D810 has nearly the same dynamic range and similar DOF look, or their Sony has a higher resolution screen.... Sigh....
Sorry to break it to all of you but this camera will be better for stills(no action) than your canon, nikon, sony, etc.

@Androole

Yes there are of course other advantages to larger formats (resolution being one of them), my point was though that for some things (which may be the most important to a particular photographer), the "physical laws" really dp suddenly stop when they are confronted by medium format sensors, it's not just a delusion of FF photographers.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2016 at 11:25 UTC
In reply to:

CANUXR: Oh boy...here we go again: most posts trashing the camera.
This happens every time a new camera comes out to "threaten" [fill in the blank] brand fanboys. They will defend their system and trash whatever else that could be better.
People are already whining their 5DSR has the same resolution for half the price or their D810 has nearly the same dynamic range and similar DOF look, or their Sony has a higher resolution screen.... Sigh....
Sorry to break it to all of you but this camera will be better for stills(no action) than your canon, nikon, sony, etc.

@OlyPent

"FF users will hector you about the fact FF offers better performance than m4/3 and APS, they'll go into great detail as to why this is the law of the universe, but for some reason, those physical laws suddenly stop when they are confronted by medium format sensors"

The benefits of FF have very little to do with sensor size and everything to do with the entrance pupil vs. angle of view.

A 50mm f/1.4 lens for FF has a 35.7mm entrance pupil. A 25mm f/1.4 normal lens for M43 has a 17mm entrance pupil, whilst an 80mm f/2.8 normal lens for medium format has a 28.6mm entrance pupil.

The trend of increasing entrance pupil size really does stop at FF.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2016 at 12:13 UTC
Total: 338, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »