The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

The P45+ and DR. And noise. And...

S

Samuel Axelsson

Guest
I propose that all future lens tests use scantily clad models. I've had enough flora and fauna shots to last for a while :)
That's a great idea, actually I'm starting to see ,"GetDPI.com""GetDPI.com""GetDPI.com""GetDPI.com"
"GetDPI.com""GetDPI.com""GetDPI.com""GetDPI.com"
"GetDPI.com""GetDPI.com""GetDPI.com"

when I water my plants...:D
 

woodyspedden

New member
Samuel,
It's not there in the original, perhaps a jpeg artifact from resizing... I'm uploading the DNG to Yousendit.com right now and will provide a link if you're interested in viewing it.
David

I would be interested in seeing the raw file so please send away!

Thanks

Woody
 
P

Panopeeper

Guest
these were converted in CS3 from DNG to TIFF, then to web-sized JPEG via Jack's action. I applied no sharpening and Jack's action does not appear to do so either.
David,

1. the sharpening is obvious; look at this crop of your crop:



2. this is ok. This sharpening is perhaps even too few for printing; however, in 100% view it does show up. This is not an important occasion; if it was, one would have to make a different sharpening for the 100% crop.

3. even if *you* did not specify sharpening in the ACR processing, there may have been some applied.

Please upload not only the DNG created by Brumbaer's, but the original raw as well; then I convert that with Adobe's DNG converter and compare the result with the other.

Brumbaer's have not applied any sharpening, for that is not possible before the de-mosaicing. However, Brumbaer's may have passed along instruction re sharpening in the raw file. I observed this on Sinar a e-54 DNG file created by Brumbaer's.

This is something you should be aware of.
 
S

Samuel Axelsson

Guest
Samuel,
It's not there in the original, perhaps a jpeg artifact from resizing... I'm uploading the DNG to Yousendit.com right now and will provide a link if you're interested in viewing it.
David, it was only an observation. I'm sure the raws and tiffs look much better.
Thanks !
 
T

thsinar

Guest
Sorry Billy, I don't owe this lens myself, and my friend just got it and did not yet shott with it. I shall try to get something as soon as possible, but now sure.

Thierry

Pham, EH21, David K, Thierry and other owners......
Someone please post some images taken with this 55mm PC lens.
Thanks in advance.
Billy
 
T

thsinar

Guest
Correct, with the risk of repeating myself: the Brumbaer DNG Converter DOES NOT have any sharpening, nor does it have any NR.

Thierry

The RAW files were converted with Brumbaer which I'm told has no sharpening applied whatsoever.
 
T

thsinar

Guest
hi Gabor,

you are correct: Brumbaer DNG Converter ONLY converts into DNG, nothing else.

Best regards,
Thierry

David,

Samuel is right with the halos. Brumbauer converts the raw file only in DNG, not in TIFF or JPEG, or am I wrong?

Thus you must have converted the DNG in JPEG by something else, and that product must have carrier out the sharpening.
 
T

thsinar

Guest
... and sorry for having started this, with my leaves!
I don't have time to drive around and look for a "blue" subject, as suggested by Jack (for the blue channel).

Sam: if you don't want to see "GetDPI" when watering your plants, come over to Bangkok, you don't need to water them here, the rainy season has started!

;)

Thierry


That's a great idea, actually I'm starting to see ,"GetDPI.com""GetDPI.com""GetDPI.com""GetDPI.com"
"GetDPI.com""GetDPI.com""GetDPI.com""GetDPI.com"
"GetDPI.com""GetDPI.com""GetDPI.com"

when I water my plants...:D
 

Dale Allyn

New member
In defense of Thierry I'll offer that the wavy green leaves that he posted look almost like plastic (or like coated silk plants) when you're standing next to them (as one who sees them often), so if that's how they were captured then his camera was doing pretty well. :)
 
T

thsinar

Guest
hi Dale,

Thanks to "defend" my point: I have mentioned this yesterday, these plants do almost not have details in their leaves, and you know them well Dale, for being so much in Thailand.

This ISO 800 test was actually not done to show details in mid- or highlight tones, but in shadows, in deep black parts of the image and in 1/4 tonalities, as well as noise in these areas: any ISO 800 of nearly any camera/digital back can show details in mid tones and in highlights (up to some extend).

And then suddenly this thread has moved to looking at details in mid tones, and images have been posted with very little shadows and blacks.

Actually and as a side note: I have shot some ISO 800 and 1600 with my 10 MPx Lumix yesterday, under sunny and bright light conditions. I can tell you that the mid tones and 3/4 tones are pretty good for a Euro 300.- camera! I won't tell you how it looks elsewhere.

After that came up the "critic" that it was mainly a green subject with the green channel being "pushed" and that the blue would have been better to look at (actually I have published the 3 RGB channels for each of my images, from the very raw DNG to the end PP TIF): I do know that this site is full of people shooting landscapes, and I do know that most of the landscapes in the world have some very little green parts in their images, rarely blue. Actually, one can do it either way, one will always find somebody to claim the contrary would have been better.

So I do not take offense of what is said or criticized. I am simply here to share my experience and to correct things when they seem to be biased or wrong. But I do believe as well that everybody is mature and responsible enough not to take all what is said by others as a fact and the truth, and do hope at the same time that all claims here or elsewhere are put on the test to be able to build-up one's own truth.

Best regards,
Thierry

In defense of Thierry I'll offer that the wavy green leaves that he posted look almost like plastic (or like coated silk plants) when you're standing next to them (as one who sees them often), so if that's how they were captured then his camera was doing pretty well. :)
 
Last edited:

Dale Allyn

New member
Thierry,

I think that it's important that we all take time to remember that most of the images which are shared here are unique to the time, place, and processing of the moment. It's all very enjoyable to see, and often informative, but unless we are shooting together and using more controlled processes, we should be careful to bear in mind the variables.

This applies to all brands of cameras and backs of course.
 
T

thsinar

Guest
Absolutely Dale, I do fully agree.

Thierry

Thierry,

I think that it's important that we all take time to remember that most of the images which are shared here are unique to the time, place, and processing of the moment. It's all very enjoyable to see, and often informative, but unless we are shooting together and using more controlled processes, we should be careful to bear in mind the variables.

This applies to all brands of cameras and backs of course.
 
P

Panopeeper

Guest
Thierry,

this "blue issue" is nonsensical. From the point of the camera's capability, it is irrelevant how much blue or red or green is there; what is relevant, how few it is, i.e. how low the exposure is on a critical part. For example skin is sometimes noisy, particularly in incandescent light, just because the blue is very low; or the blue sky is noisy, because the red is very low.

Here is a part of your plasticy plant, non-demosaiced, brightness increased by 5 stops (this view is darker). The increase is necessary, for your camera does not have ISO 800, and the shot is strongly underexposed.

The blue in the selected area (in the orangy rectangle) is in the tenth and eleventh stop, and it is very clean (the standard deviation is of limited use here, because the patch is not uniform). That shows the quality, not how it looks there, where the exposure is high.

 

David K

Workshop Member
Gabor,

When I read your posts I feel like the blond who doesn't get the joke :) I'm almost afraid to ask what you mean when you say Thierry's camera (mine too) doesn't have ISO 800.
 

David K

Workshop Member
Guys I wasn't kidding.
If you look carefully you'll see a black line outside the white one, very thin but it's there. I see it in both of my monitors. Maybe isn't sharpening but it must be some kind of artifact.
I'm referring to the 100% crop.

The crop got my attention because the edges are very defined but there's no very fine detail in the leave's surface.
About the ISO, I asked if it was 800 because it looks a bit noisy. That's why I thought it could be the sharpening.

Maybe I'm looking too close....
Samuel,
Turns out you are correct and that my conversion did, inadvertently, sharpen the edges in the image. I use Aperture to convert the DNG's to TIFF's and there is a default sharpening that I had not turned off. This was not apparent to me because that adjustment is hidden unless you choose for it to be shown (which I never did because it's not my intention to sharpen at that stage). Thanks to your good eye I have now got my settings the way I want them.
 
P

Panopeeper

Guest
what you mean when you say Thierry's camera (mine too) doesn't have ISO 800.
It means, that when you select ISO 200, the metering will yield one stop lower exposure than with ISO 100, just like with a -1 EV exposure bias. Additionally, the camera records, that your intention was to use ISO 200, and the raw processor will apply a +1 EV correction (+2 EV with ISO 400, +3 EV with ISO 800).

This is true re the eMotion 54. I am not sure regarding the e75: I see that it does not have ISO 800, but it is possible, that it has ISO 400. I don't have comparable raw files to analyze that (I need the same scenery, same illumination, with ISO 50, 100, 200, etc., either with constant exposure, or with 1 EV reduced at each ISO increase).

However, Thierry's shot is exactly three stops lower exposed than the very right edge; this mad me think that the exposure had been calculated three stops lower than "normal". Otherwise he would have had to underexpose by two stops - not very probable.

Befor you get scared: this is not unique. The Phase One P25+, and apparently the P30 too don't have different ISO gains; the P45+ does. Please note the difference between the ISO setting and the ISO gain.

This is all right, because these cameras have a huge dynamic range and deliver very clean pixels. However, there is a downside of this, cased not by the camera but by Brumbaer's and eXposure, therefor I suggest not to use fictional ISOs.

Keep in eyes, that there is no ISO gain, i.e. the image data is the same as it would be with any other ISO setting if the exposure were the same. You use higher ISO in circumstances, when you can not expose high enough with the "standard" ISO, whatever that is. So, now ypu select ISO 400 and expose two stops lower, than you would do with ISO 100. However, there may be highlights in the scenery; these would be blown with real ISO gain, but not with the fictional ISO. This means, that you can "recover" (this is incorrect here) areas, which appear blown. However, as the automatic compensation for the underexposure is realized, everything higher than the fictional limit is regarded by ACR as "blown out"; you can gain it back by the exposure or by the "recovery" slider, but if you don't know this, you get fooled.

I don't know, how it works with Aperture, but what I see in the DNG file generated by Brumbaer's and eXposure indicates, that the same will happen there.

Capture One may treat the original raw files differently, more sensibly, I don't know.
 
Last edited:
T

thsinar

Guest
Yes, Gabor, I am aware of this, that the "blue issue" is nonsensical, I simply did not want to elaborate on this. It is very clear to me, how it works, and that I can check the noise behaviour of a digital camera as well in "Green" subjects.

Thanks for your explanation, it helps a lot to understand how noise works.

Best regards,
Thierry

Addendum: for others, and since we were speaking about "details" here and the lack of details of my ISO 800 shot, one may look and appreciate how many details and how clean they are when under-exposed by 5 f-stops, respectively brightened (dixit Gabor). That is why I was saying that Jack and myself don't have the same understanding of details. I was not speaking about available structures in a shot and the image in general, but those kind of details as shown in deep shadows.

Thierry,

this "blue issue" is nonsensical. From the point of the camera's capability, it is irrelevant how much blue or red or green is there; what is relevant, how few it is, i.e. how low the exposure is on a critical part. For example skin is sometimes noisy, particularly in incandescent light, just because the blue is very low; or the blue sky is noisy, because the red is very low.

Here is a part of your plasticy plant, non-demosaiced, brightness increased by 5 stops (this view is darker). The increase is necessary, for your camera does not have ISO 800, and the shot is strongly underexposed.

The blue in the selected area (in the orangy rectangle) is in the tenth and eleventh stop, and it is very clean (the standard deviation is of limited use here, because the patch is not uniform). That shows the quality, not how it looks there, where the exposure is high.
 
Last edited:
Top