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!
chambers theorized whether NR is done in camera or by SPP recognizing DPQ files and doing it even if NR is on low.These files are RAW converted to JPEG. So no noise reduction is applied.
With a DPM I would believe it's not necessary to sharpen or increase contrast that much in post, where as a file from the DPQ certainly would need some processing to appear sharp.
This is no other way than how we deal with Beyer RAW.
I have though not seen any good example of excellent PP work by means of SPP6 and later Photoshop or Cap1 etc...
You are right. He did. It is criminal to apply NR to a converted RAW file. :loco:SIGMA!chambers theorized whether NR is done in camera or by SPP recognizing DPQ files and doing it even if NR is on low.
nobody knows, but the files look very suspicious of aggressive NR or it's just how the sensor is, I have no idea.
No borrow terms here in the country I live in.Just try the camera out and decide for yourself.
That's too bad.No borrow terms here in the country I live in.
Please sombody else...
Sigma (Foveon) has done this from the very beginning. I'm not unconvinced ALL camera manufacturers don't as well---but the Sigma color data is noisy, and they use some very clever methods to get color and details out. The noise patterns from the Foveon chip is different than CFA chips---and they have to be handled differently. The noise reduction is influenced by WB (I think) as well as the chroma and luma NR settings (that weren't available before the Merrill generation). The magenta/green blotching that you notice in underexposed images is low frequency noise that remains after you take out the high frequency noise---and it's difficult to get rid of. It's a fundamental aspect of the stacked sensor (someone mentioned them liking 'light'---and they do!). Foveon has continuously worked on improving this, and the current generation is much better than the SD9.You are right. He did. It is criminal to apply NR to a converted RAW file. :loco:SIGMA!
I paid diglloyd $50 to do it for meJust try the camera out and decide for yourself.
Guess that's up to you.I paid diglloyd $50 to do it for me
probably done a better comparison than I ever could.
One thing is to improve micro contrast and sharpness, done in software, another to get the details, only OOC. Interpolation kills details, on a Bayer or a Q.I have downloaded a few of the images here on this site Sigma dp2 Quattro - zdj
and processed them in Photoshop.
This is actually not quite serious, but it indicates what kind of DR and latitude the files shows. Imaging I had the RAW file.. it would be a different conclusion found below:
It is possible to dig out tremendous contrast by using curves in PS. Hue and color adjustments. Dodge and burn. Two or three sharpening passes seems adequate. One unsharpen mask at appr. 25-25% at appr. 100 pix level, one smart sharpening pass at 100%, 0,2 pix.
It is almost impossible to generate halo effects or make noise visible.
Dodging high lights in the shadows really develop pretty deep.
It is very very promising. But again my experiment is a simpletons work. Not really useful.
This is where the DP3m enter the placeHi! Just joined!
I've got a Sigma DP2M and really like it. I don't believe from what I've read so far that I'll be replacing it with the Quattro model. Although I do really like the Quattro images I've seen so far because of what appears to be more realistic colors and improved shadows. Sometimes my DP2M produces colors that are not at all like reality.