Carsten Thomsen

Lives in Denmark Denmark
Has a website at carsten.smugmug.com
Joined on Mar 20, 2003

Comments

Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6

Continue from previous post:
6. Apple is slightly hot on the Red and Green Channels, Google is more Cool, and more neutral.
7. When I view the two imagines full screen, to get an overall feel of things, Apple colors are much more punchy. Even when dropping the Exposure by 0.5 EV. This is probably due to the wider color gamut.

My conclusion: If sharpness is the only criteria, Google wins by a small margin. But Apple has a more conservative (abberation free) approach to image processing, and with the wider gamut is gives a more pleasant picture for my taste.

On a recent vacation I shot the 7 Plus exclusively, and time and again I when compared the recorded shot on the screen with the "real world" just captured, I was astounded by the accuracy of color rendering and exposure.

I would suggest the DP Review offers more insight and guidance to the processing going on in high end smart phones, it is a totally new game.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2016 at 23:13 UTC as 22nd comment | 3 replies

Observations on OOC jpg files from both cameras:
1. Google is sharper on natural objects such as strands of hair than Apple.
2. Google has significant amounts of chromatic abberation and moire on a large number of test patterens, also on small text.
3. The Apple JPEG seems very appropriately sharpened, additional sharpening starts adding artefacts.
4. Apple has greater dynamic range in the histogram, and Google appears to have a smoother highlight curve, with very little info in the upper 10% of the histogram, while Apple is close to clipping. The Google exposure is about 0.4 EV lower than Apple if I use the midpoint of the greyscale as reference. It is also clear that the tone curves are quite different when examining the Kodak gray scale wedge.
5. Yes, Google has slightly better resolution/sharpness, but it comes at a significant cost of abberations visible by pixel peepers. Apple stays away from pushing the processing too hard, and has fewer artefacts.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2016 at 23:12 UTC as 23rd comment

When I first viewed the comparisons, I was looking at the iPhone RAW vs. the Google Pixel. There the difference is dramatic in favour of the Pixel. The RAW developed JPG file, it is much flatter with a restricted dynamic range. It is clear what Apple and Google can do with their multi-exposure software, etc. will give a much better result than developing a RAW file. So ignore the RAW file, this is not a standard DSLR, and the idea that developing a RAW file will give better results may no longer be true.

I have compared the Apple OOC JPG which is about half file size of the Google Pixel JPEG file. I View both at 2:1 in Lightroom on a 5K iMac.

I think many of the very negative comments may be due to using the Apple RAW processed file, I also was shocked when I saw it.

Observations on OOC jpg files from both cameras: See next post.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2016 at 23:11 UTC as 24th comment
On article iPhone 7 Plus real-world sample gallery (262 comments in total)

It's interesting to see all the whining on this forum. I've just returned from a weeks vacation shooting the 7plus exclusively, and can only say, it nails exposure and color incredibly accurately. White balance uncannily good. Sharpening is tastefully done, and can handle a tad more in post-processing. The 2x zoom lens is a huge plus. And the digital zoom, if used moderately, is surprisingly good. Panoramas are superb, video stabilisation excellent, 10 fps better than most DSLRs. Only niggle is some autofocus hunting at low light levels. And yes, it's not a D750 which I shoot extensively, but for getting the shot of the moment, also underwater, it does an excellent job.

Also a note to DP Review!!! When you show 100% you over-expand for the iMAC 5K. I'm sure that makes the pixel peepers even more happy ;-) (p.s. I used to be one myself.)

Link | Posted on Oct 1, 2016 at 13:34 UTC as 26th comment | 1 reply
On article Just Posted: In-depth Nikon D800 review (541 comments in total)

I annually shoot sports events for our local research park, with close to 1500 participants. I use my D700 where the output has to be on the web within an hour and on a overhead projector for the dinner that follows the event. People love to see themselves, so we typically have one hour to get 700 shots ready. I shoot 3 MPix JPG mode with some extra sharpening to get crisp images, and get excellent results and also extra exposure/shutter latitude due to the noise reduction inherent in 3 MPix vs. 12 MPix. The lightweight images also make fast post-processing possible.

I would suggest that DP review also look at the quality some of the downsampled outputs of cameras like the D700 and D800. My gut feel is that these downsampled outputs are actually sharper with great acuity and less noisy than if they were shot with a camera with this as its native resolution.

I would also support the comments that D800 images should be downsampled to Mark III size, to give fair comparisons.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2012 at 12:46 UTC as 90th comment
In reply to:

Hen3ry: How long does the battery last with all that computing power and that screen, doing even simple picture editing?

And yes, the lack of a built-in SD card reader and a USB port is ridiculous.

Like Apple way back when, crippling the Mac by allowing only one disk drive and having to be dragged kicking and screaming to anything faster than a serial port on the back.

Cheers, geoff

Yes, there is only one button, but right clickl still works on it (Magic Mouse).

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2012 at 02:31 UTC
Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6