Jump to content


Member Since 28 Jan 2004
Offline Last Active Mar 17 2007 01:53 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Canon EOS-1D Mark III announced

26 February 2007 - 05:46 PM

Most of the lenses we've been using were designed for film cameras. I don't see what the lens resolution and distortions have to do with the discussion on dynamic range and sunballs.


In Topic: Canon 1dmk3 and reasonable expectations

26 February 2007 - 05:42 PM

The 1dmk2 already outperformed the D2Hs. It's quite possible somebody has been working on a D3H for the last 2 years that now can't match the new 1dmk3. The new mk3 has 3x the pixels, 25% higher frame rate and far superior noise performance. Now what if your new model can't match it?
This is hard to predict, but I don't think this is the case. First, it wouldn't be Nikon, it would be Sony. Second, no one has yet touched Canon in regards to noise performance. Third, Canon uses CMOS, while Nikon may or may not be using this type of chip, either CCD or JFET. Many of the chip enhancements are specific to CMOS (and possibly JFET) technology. Will Nikon's next product have 14 bit digitization?

The bar just got raised pretty high and Nikon hadn't reached it at its lower setting. I can see a future of white lenses only at sporting events. It almost that way already.

All of that, including the inaccuracies, is irrelevant to my comment. Well, I guess asking a question about 14-bit processing after I had already made an unprompted answer could be considered relative :D

Again, what a company puts on the market is not limited by what they are capable of putting on the market. If I look at Canon and Nikon's respective lineups, it all makes sense......except where Canon has incorporated higher processing without greater dr sensor. I suspect this was done entirely for speed to service their long, fast, glass customer base. MkIII meets that niche quite nicely I think.

People on both sides of this fence seem to drink the Kool-Aid in gallons ;)

In Topic: Canon EOS-1D Mark III announced

26 February 2007 - 04:53 PM

looking at the table above, say you expose the sun area correctly (exposure zone 1) and want to bring detail back to an area that was 4 stops underexposed. With the 12bit images you will have 256 levels available, with the 14bit image you will have 1024. The 14bit image will look better after post-processing, right?

Dirty data, whether it's the result of sensor blooming on the high end or underexposing on the low end remains the same. 14-bit processing just places a greater scrutiny (levels/gradation) on it. This is analogous to what happened when we used 10, 12 and 16 mp cameras with lenses designed when 4, 6 and 8 mp cameras were the hi-end. Suddenly what we once couldn't see now came into a sharp focus, and some of it we didn't like much. It changed how we shot and changed what lens we shot with. Example: 12-24mm nik behind a dome.

14-bit.......essentially, in the case of sunballs, it will heighten the evidence of fringing on the high end as well as the evidence of noise on the low end. Plus it will preclude using underexposure as a workaround for the same two issues.

Better processing will require cleaner capture data if the proportional distributions remain the same (Canon has not indicated they have changed). Sunballs or the popular workarounds when shooting sunballs do not deliver cleaner data. I cannot see how greater scrutiny on dirty data makes the image better. I can see how 14-bit and higher processing will make us shoot in a way that minimizes what we now consider acceptable. I can also see why it is better. I just don't believe it will make certain shoots improve without first being captured on a sensor with higher dr. Sunballs is one of those image types.

I won't bore anyone with further comments on this subject ;)

In Topic: Canon 1dmk3 and reasonable expectations

26 February 2007 - 02:27 PM

"I'd hate to be the Nikon D3H product manager. Quick, somebody grab his sword."

Why? I don't think the mkIII represents advancements that most other manufacturers, and certainly Nikon, don't already have in the bag too. I think *when* we see cameras and advances or evolution has more to do with marketing than it does with when or how the company applied new or advanced technologies. These two companies are way more similar in what they are capable of than their decidedly different product goals and marketing targets would otherwise make one believe. It would not surprise me if Nikon doesn't incorprate higher bit processing in future bodies until they have a sensor capable of reducing blooming without a greater reliance on gates.

In the end you can make better, more accurate, efficient and effective cameras, but what good does it do if the lens products don't keep up? Both Canon and Nikon are past that point already and need to play catch-up with their optical offerings.

In Topic: Canon EOS-1D Mark III announced

26 February 2007 - 08:43 AM

14-bit A/D does no good if the sensor it's sampling does not have enough dynamic range. I thought that was clear from my last message.

Perhaps it wasn't you who said 14-bit will appreciably improve sunbursts. My apologies for the inaccurate cite.

I think you developed your rule from using sensors with insufficient dynamic range.

That specific rule or determination is the result of how the software applies the collected data. Your example of underexposing would be fine if the cameras applied data to lower levels using the same protocols they use for upper levels. And at the risk of stating the obvious: if the camera applies half of captured data to the highest exposure, half the remaining to the next highest, half the remaining to the next highest, and so on down the line it is clear that if we want to capture most image data at underexposed values we will not be working with anything close to clean or sufficient data. You just can't stretch that thin dirty data in post without ending up with very high levels of noise and other unpleasing results specific to digital capture. That's one of the problems with sunball shots, the sunball itself is using up so much of the total possible data that there is very little left for the more pleasing exposed areas of the image. Underexposing only exacerbates the problem.

But yes, it would be fair to conclude that many of my personal rules for digital capture are the result of the insufficient dr of cameras on the market as well as the data spread currently used. Your Canons and my Nikons are equally guilty of both. No current camera proportions data differently at this point in time, including the mkIII.