Joined on Dec 20, 2019


Total: 5, showing: 1 – 5
On article Apple iPhone 13 Pro sample gallery (461 comments in total)

Can we please get some single frame RAW files? The computational apple pro RAWs are less than impressive if you look at any portion of a low light image that contains fast moving objects. Many of the cars in the evening cityscape photo are a jumbled mess of pixels as these areas could not benefit as much from the image stacking and processing. Yet the buildings and trees look fine. ProRAW is a nice feature to have but is still not up to the task of moving objects in low light. It would be nice to have a motion blur option for moving objects in multi frame stacks (as cortex cam does). The ultra wide lens is still pretty weak optically, but I suppose that's understandable. Would love to see more single frame RAWs from the wide lens with its new sensor. Thanks.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2021 at 15:20 UTC as 137th comment
In reply to:

gazza73: The biggest problem with this lastst trent of mirrorless camera Multishot modes is the total lack of support for using it with strobes and in my eyes, renderering them almost useless in all but a very select use case. In my eyes a major advantage for the extra resolution would be in a controled studio setup for still life or reproduction but none of these latest cameras support flash in Mutlishot mode.

Not the most practical cameras, but the Sigma Quattro series (Dp & sd) flash sync in SFD multishot mode. Different than pixel shift, but similar end result.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2020 at 13:22 UTC

It seems to me that this approach to combining adjacent groupings of same colour pixels would not increase colour accuracy per se (it would actually diminish it a little due to cross-talk) so much as it would increase tonal range. Can someone here confirm whether this is an accurate assessment?

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2020 at 21:22 UTC as 23rd comment
In reply to:

if_then_else: Here is what I do not get about 'scanning' film with a DSLR or another digital camera: A real scanner gives you full readout per pixel and in great color depth, a DSLR will simply use a Bayer(-like) setup to interpolate the results with substantially less color depth. If you are using film for the sake of the colors and the look, you should scan with a classical scanner. If you use a DSLR to digitize your negatives, please stop talking about color and the 'look' of film.

You raise an interesting point, but fail to appreciate that the results speak for themselves, and the results are excellent, when done properly.

The advantages are greatest for 35mm film for obvious reasons.

The general advantages are that you have much more creative control when scanning to raw using a digital camera than you do even with a 16bit TIFF from a flatbed scanner. Additionally, converting from raw using NLP plugin for Lightroom will save you a lot of time if you don’t like manually inverting.

Overall, the method is cheaper (if you already have a digital camera and suitable lens), faster, and produces better results than even high-end flatbed scanners. If you are someone who is extremely concerned about theoretical fidelity to film when scanning, you could simply use pixel shift to overcome the Bayer limitations. There are several ways of achieving this. Or shoot Foveon and save to DNG.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2020 at 05:56 UTC
In reply to:

tbcass: Can someone explain why using ultra small pixels and combining them for a 12mp image is better than simply using larger pixels for the same size image.

Because you retain some additional detail (above that rendered by a standard 12mp sensor) while achieving a similar level of noise. Additionally, you get the benefit of the much higher resolution when shooting in good light. This also allows for fewer lenses by way of using crop "zoom". High MP is definitely useful as a marketing tool, but there are also some very practical advantages to it. tbcass's assessment is misguided for this reason.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2019 at 17:01 UTC
Total: 5, showing: 1 – 5