Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: RSL on August 09, 2012, 09:21:35 pm
-
It's impossible to show what the D800 really can do by posting a compressed jpeg, but here are a couple files that can give you a rough idea. The first one's a 100% crop from a shot of the remnants of the Vindicator goldmine processing plant. It's a tiny segment of part of the left side of the original 7360 x 4912 pixel raw file, shot from a tripod with a Nikon 24-70 f/2.8. The Victor, Colorado bar was shot with the same rig, but handheld. 17 x 22 inch prints from this thing are astonishing, and it's obvious that wall-size prints would be even more astonishing.
-
Thanks for sharing!
Erik
It's impossible to show what the D800 really can do by posting a compressed jpeg, but here are a couple files that can give you a rough idea. The first one's a 100% crop from a shot of the remnants of the Vindicator goldmine processing plant. It's a tiny segment of part of the left side of the original 7360 x 4912 pixel raw file, shot from a tripod with a Nikon 24-70 f/2.8. The Victor, Colorado bar was shot with the same rig, but handheld. 17 x 22 inch prints from this thing are astonishing, and it's obvious that wall-size prints would be even more astonishing.
-
Indeed!
Mike.
-
17 x 22 inch prints from this thing are astonishing, and it's obvious that wall-size prints would be even more astonishing.
Thanks for sharing.
Yep, the D800 is a pretty amazing camera at a great price point.
I guess it is going to be the final stop for a long time for many of us, I have a hard time imagining what more we could really need for landscape work, especially with stitching as a possible option for prints larger than 30 inches.
Add a few Zeiss ZF (50 and 100 f2.0) and Leica R lenses (180 f2.8 APO) on top of the best Nikkors (24 f1.4, 85 f1.4, 300 f2.8,...) and you have a system able to deliver extreeeeeemely sweet images.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The first one's a 100% crop from a shot of the remnants of the Vindicator goldmine processing plant. It's a tiny segment of part of the left side of the original 7360 x 4912 pixel raw file, shot from a tripod with a Nikon 24-70 f/2.8.
Hi Russ,
That's a nice example of the capabilities of the D800, but I'm not too pleased with the sharpening halos. Are you sure this is a straight crop from a Raw file, and not one prepared/sharpened for print? If you could post the same crop but unsharpened, even as a JPEG, I'll show you how the image looks after proper deconvolution capture sharpening. You may be even more pleased with the camera.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart, You're absolutely right. I keep forgetting to go back and start over from the raw file for a post. I always sharpen for printing and then forget that for anything else the shot's over-sharpened.
But here are two more. Neither has had any sharpening. One is the full, un-cropped shot. The other is as close as I can get with the 100% crop on my laptop. This morning my main machine -- my desktop -- failed completely. Monday there'll be a Dell technician on my doorstep with a hard drive, a motherboard, and a rear fan. Of course, it's the C drive that failed, so I'm going to have to reinstall a bunch of software and convince outfits like Adobe and Nik that I had a hard drive failure and that I'm not trying to rip them off.
-
Bart, You're absolutely right. I keep forgetting to go back and start over from the raw file for a post. I always sharpen for printing and then forget that for anything else the shot's over-sharpened.
But here are two more. Neither has had any sharpening. One is the full, un-cropped shot. The other is as close as I can get with the 100% crop on my laptop. This morning my main machine -- my desktop -- failed completely. Monday there'll be a Dell technician on my doorstep with a hard drive, a motherboard, and a rear fan. Of course, it's the C drive that failed, so I'm going to have to reinstall a bunch of software and convince outfits like Adobe and Nik that I had a hard drive failure and that I'm not trying to rip them off.
Attached is my guess at deconvolution capture sharpening of the 100% crop. Of course a JPEG is not the best working material, but it should give an idea.
Good luck with rebuilding your system.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I am impressed somewhat by the 'Bar' image (and it makes me want to meet a laughing Lab!).
Without a comparison pic of the old industrial site I have trouble getting too enthused. I think I might lean towards 'disappointed'. I know that there is a big difference in price but I think a 36mp back on MF gets closer to justifying the exercise.
Nevertheless, I wish you much joy and success with your new kit Rus.
-
Some nice WPA shots there Russ, Paul Strand is jealous!
Pay no attention, I'm jealous too.
Slap an old manual Micro Nikkor 55mm on that thing if you wanna see some REALLY sharp shots.
Or shoot a 2 x 2 stitch and call it 110+ MP.
-
I just don't get it.
Of all the folks here, I'd have thought Russ would have stood aside from the race to megas and geegaws of one sort or another. Yet, that bloody D800 twin has affected him too!
It's not even as if it were the most expensive camera in the world - nowhere near that; so what's the craze about? I read some of the posts a while back when the thing was hot, but never felt any inclination to buy, despite the repeated publicity from my Nikon dealer that lands in the postbox and then leaps almost unread into the recycle bag. (The recycle bag itself gets recycled, so yes, I care, I care!)
Once you have something that gives you what you need, I believe that's when you should stop; your actual needs - not just Russ's needs, everyone's needs probably - are usually far short of what they are imagined to be. In film days it was easy: you bought the best that your work dictated you buy, and that was that - until it wore out from use, or stayed pristine on your shelf and you went broke. This commonsensical approach appears to have been swept into oblivion and advertising rules. What a shame; I'd rather relax and enjoy the cellphone and just play. I really wouldn't want any of these things other than - possibly - a Leica that works and is lighter than what I have from Nikon. But I sure don't think it's worth the money and even though I could buy it, I won't.
I think that getting hung up on equipment is perhaps the worst fate that can befall a photographer other than losing his vision. In a way, it's the same thing.
Rob C
-
Until after Monday, when I get a new C drive, motherboard, and rear fan for my main machine, and then reinstall all the drivers and software, convince Adobe and Nik that I'm not trying to rip them off with another activation, etc., etc., I'm not in a position to do extended responses. But, first, let me tell you that you have to see the prints to understand why the D800 is so "hot." According to various testing outfits, in some ways the D800 can beat medium format digital backs that start at about ten times the price of the D800.
I haven't given up my other cameras, Rob. I carry what's appropriate for the job. Yesterday one of my granddaughters got married, and I shot the wedding with my good old D3. Unless you have difficulty reasoning, you don't go out and shoot a couple hundred pictures with the D800. 200 D800 shots will give you roughly10 gigabytes to manage and store. To me, the D800 is for landscape and for the abandoned farmhouses and dying prairie towns I love to shoot. I almost never shoot the D800 handheld. It occupies roughly the space in my equipment lineup that my 4 x 5 view camera used to occupy.
I should add that I'm not at all happy with the last two posts I made on this thread. Trying to do serious photographic work on a laptop is an exercise in futility. I'll probably go back to this picture once my system's back in order.
Can't leave, though, without posting one shot from the wedding. As I said, this isn't a D800 picture, but I almost wish I'd shot it with the D800.
-
Come on Rob, you're making us dinosaurs look old!
In the development of film cameras we reached a plateau somewhere around the early 60's where we had excellent, affordable cameras like the Nikon F, Rollei, and such. They did everything useful thing a camera could do within the constraints imposed by film technology. Most subsequent film cameras were merely a matter of gilding the lily with questionable improvements not really having to do with image quality, except perhaps for lenses.
It seems possible that the D800 may be one of the first affordable cameras to reach a similar digital plateau.
The 5D2 was almost there, but still needed just a little more image quality for really big prints. Whereas the 5D2 was just a little shy of the plateau the D800 is sitting up on the top edge. It is capable of producing large fine art prints and commercial print imagery that require no apologies or footnotes or special circumstances. It is not limited to images that satisfy near horizon requirements like "good enough for the web" or "good enough for magazines." It's good enough for anything! A compact, cheap, one-size-fits-all miracle.
Yes I know this has all been said before about every previous digital camera, but IMHO this D800 may mark the first instance where the hype meshes with the reality. I have personally reached these conclusions by making some 29 x 43's from D800 files. Provided the images are technically perfect at button-pushing time, and gently processed, they are a wonder to behold as large, rich looking, information-full prints.
And this is from a guy who used the same Nikon Photomic FTN for 35 years.
-
You're never going to see it in a post. You need to see the prints.
-
Then why post?
Because most people will understand that our low resolution displays only show a small 100% zoom crop from a file. When printed at the same resolution, say 100 PPI, we do get more or less the same result but we'd need paper of roughly 74 x 49 inches (6 x 4 feet, or 1.87 x 1.25 metres).
I don't know about your printer but I usually print smaller, and thus at higher resolution, than what my display is capable of. Yet, I have no difficulty in making the mental connection between what I see on display, and how that would look on paper. The relatively enlarged screen display also makes it easier to spot sharpening or aliasing issues that might be easier to overlook in prints (until the moment you sell the print, which is when the shortcomings start staring you in the face).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Slap an old manual Micro Nikkor 55mm on that thing if you wanna see some REALLY sharp shots.
bill, I bought one of those Nikkor 55 F3.5's from KEH on a whim a few years ago. When I saw the results on my D300, I immediately ordered another one as a backup. An absolutely amazing optic.
On my D800 it is just beyond description. My Epson 9800 is positively drooling with anticipation.
The other day, shooting with a friend who also has a D800, I said "Y'know? This might just be my last camera." He agreed.
Welcome to the Golden Age of Photography. We are truly blessed.
-
That amazing D800.
I penned a reply to Russ this morning, but as seems to happen quite a lot these days, the effin’ screen froze and I had to switch off by, literally, pulling the plug on it. So it’s all lost.
Anyway. Let me get back to the point I thought I’d made. The D800 and its half-twin may well be the best things in photography since Victor dreamed up the 500; I even accept that they are, if I must, just to keep you happy. But it doesn’t matter. What matters is the use you owners actually make of it, made of all your other, previous cameras, and why or where changes are gonna happen by this purchase.
(Jeez! Now the bloody font keeps changing on me!)
I think that nothing’s going to change, that you’ll go on making the same images you always have, that the same subjects will enthral you as ever they did, that the difference will be that your imagination will believe that you can and will climb new mountains and face fresh pastures. I predict you won’t. Photography’s a strange beast. It’s a mistress, a whore, a saviour and even a friend in need, But it never changes you into somebody else. And that’s a huge problem for photographers who hope that it can and, perhaps, will.
As some may know, I’m reading (avidly, as it turns out) a collection of Ansel Adams' letters (from and to) and it’s amazing to see how common photographic ills are, how so many of us suffer from the same questions of worth, doubt, and anxiety about pretty much everything; we set up windmills for ourselves, fight giants who aren’t even aware that we exist. I seem to deduce a sea change in his attitude and priorities; from a young chap concerned with cameras, lenses, papers and developers etc. he later ceases reference to any of that stuff, delving ever more deeply into the reasons why for a photograph, of its purpose and even, sometimes, of its validity in the greater scheme of things. Politics, both environmental and photographic, seems to become more the focus of his letters than does photography itself; format, too, concerns him: he states at one point that he might well turn to 10x8s and abandon the practice of ‘large’… in other words, and relevant to this topic here on LuLa, the idea of making bigger and bigger prints, though he always could, fails to be an answer to the emotional man. I don’t think much has changed. I think anything that gives what the late D700 can give is all any amateur need aspire to own. And that was available several years ago. Why did I buy? FF and low-light friendly. It never occurred to me that I might desire to make prints bigger than A3+ - I still wouldn’t really want to and even the size I can make has ground to a halt after the realisation of what running a goddam printer really means: you work to use up the ink so as not to allow the thought that you’ve bought into another form of yacht!
If you make real money from your photography, that’s another matter entirely; if you don’t, then buy the boat instead. At least you’ll get to attract some girls. Cameras only impress other cameras.
;-)
Rob C
-
I was responding to the OP who suggested "you're never going to see it in a post".
I'm saying you can see the qualities that matter in a post.
To convince yourself I'd suggest buying, borrowing, or renting a D800 for a few days. You need to see it in action.
-
The 1/4 plate Daguerreotype was all we ever really needed. You seriously had to want to take the picture. And if photographing a person, they really had to want to be photographed. And what's wrong with that? A little difficulty in any process tends to blow away the chaff. Of course, you had to like the smell of a hot mercury fumes.
Isn't this a gorgeous little chunk (http://www.flickr.com/photos/28248484@N06/2638682864/)? It is purity personified.
Although today some view the Holga (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/369376-REG/Holga_144120_144_120_120N.html) as almost as beautiful. It produces "distinct images with dream-like, vignetted look." Amen to that. The light leak flashes are another outstanding feature of the Holga. For some, it's the camera of choice and all they need.
But if you want to sell photographs, make 'em sofa sized. That's all you need to know about photo sales in this day and age. I sincerely appreciate that so many of my competitors don't believe it. That's the only excuse Russ or anybody needs for that D800.
And I really appreciate that Ansel did all that soul searching for me. It's not really my forte. Do the work first, think about it later. Great photographs spring far more often from dumb good luck than from the photographer's frontal lobes. The art is in large part simply being able to recognize when Lady Luck has winked at you, and having the wits to push the button while the light's still good.
-
Rob, I agree. Nothing's changed. I'm going to go on making the same images I've always made. But I've always tried to work with the best tool for the job at hand. I'll still shoot street, and I'll shoot street with the E-P1 with its Leica 50mm f/1.4 equivalent lens, unless I'm shooting at night in a place like St. Augustine, in which case I'll substitute a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 on the D3, which has the same sensor as your D700. I'll still do my grandchildren's weddings and other high-volume shoots with the D3. But I've been shooting history in the gold fields and abandoned farm houses and dying prairie towns since the middle sixties, and since I switched to digital I've always wished I had the digital equivalent of my old 4 x 5 for that kind of shoot. I came really close this last year to springing for a medium format setup, which would have meant buying at least the body with digital back and two or three lenses. Now I have the equivalent at less than a tenth the price and I don't need to buy any new lenses.
I've never been an equipment nut. Some of my best photographs came from a half-frame Olympus Pen, which I had in Vietnam in 1965, and a few more of my best shots are from a 3 megapixel Casio I bought in 2000. Unfortunately, some of that stuff won't hold up for a print larger than about 8 x 10, and then only if it's street, where resolution isn't critical. My portfolios -- the ones I take around to galleries -- are printed at 13 x 19, and fairly often I print at 17 x 22 on my Epson 3880. The recent 13 x 19s I've made for the portfolios are stunning. The 17 x 22s are even more stunning. And I know that I can take a D800 file down to the local job shop and get a 20" x 30" 100% print at 240 ppi.
Unless you're going to confine yourself to a single photographic genre it doesn't pay to limit yourself to a single tool. The D3 and D800 are too big for comfortable street work. The E-P1 isn't flexible enough for weddings and general shooting. Neither the E-P1 nor the D3 can give me the kind of resolution I'd really like to have for static subjects I shoot off a tripod with mirror up and with aperture large enough to minimize diffraction losses. So, the right tool for the right job.
And, by the way, I'm too old to chase girls, so I don't flash my cameras around.
-
The D800 may not be perfect, but it is today - by a large margin - the best sensor out there in front of which you can mount Leica R APO lenses.
I am not sure why anyone objectively concerned by ultimate image quality would want to overlook this amazing combination.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The D800 may not be perfect, but it is today - by a large margin - the best sensor out there in front of which you can mount Leica R APO lenses.
I am not sure why anyone objectively concerned by ultimate image quality would want to overlook this amazing combination.Cheers,
Bernard
That's exactly the point: ultimate image quality and great photographs are not the same thing.
I don't think anybody has been knocking the camera; I do think that there is an almost messianic fervour attached to this one, though. However, as I still, honestly, don't 'get it' as being anything but an attempt to find photographic nirvana which, I imagined we all knew, resides in the mind, there's not a lot that I can think to add to my stated view.
Russ's horses for courses attitude is admirable, but I wonder if in the end it will make the slightest real difference to the product of his already good eye.
"And, by the way, I'm too old to chase girls, so I don't flash my cameras around."
Thank goodness, Russ; cameras never were the aphrodisiacs: it was the lifestyle of the guys with the long hair using them.
;-)
Rob C
-
That's exactly the point: ultimate image quality and great photographs are not the same thing.
True, but great lenses have a look that, combined with the tones delivered by a camera like the D800, do contribute to the greatness of an image. You get a level of smoothness that has to be seen.
I am not speaking about detail/resolution here, that is arguably mostly irrelevant as long as it is good enough to get 240dpi.
I am also not saying that the attributes I mention above will make a poor image good, but it will contribute to making a good image great. I mean good as in good concept, good composition and good technique.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
True, but great lenses have a look that, combined with the tones delivered by a camera like the D800, do contribute to the greatness of an image. You get a level of smoothness that has to be seen.
I believe this is really the problem. As great as the DR may be, the actual tone-reproduction delivered by the D800 has failed to convince me so far. Interestingly, I feel exactly the same about the Sony RX100. For some reason, the images I have seen, fail to communicate that certain depth that ought to be entirely possible considering the specs...
-
You're right, Oscar. Different lenses draw differently, and the Leica lenses I've had over the past 58 years all have drawn best of all my lenses. It would be interesting to see what a Leica lens could do on the D800. But I'll go back again to what I said earlier: There's no way a 72 ppi, jpeg compressed monitor image can begin to convey what the D800 can do. I'd point back to the shot I posted at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=69170.msg547643#msg547643. The screen version of that shot, made with the Nikon 24-70, tells you what's in the picture, tells you about composition, etc., etc., but it can't even begin to tell you what the 16 x 19 print I put in my portfolio can convey. I don't know what images you're talking about when you say "the images I've seen," but if they're monitor images, there's no way they can communicate the depth you're looking for, and if they're prints, then I'd suspect the competence of the printer.
-
… but it can't even begin to tell you what the 16 x 19 print I put in my portfolio can convey. I don't know what images you're talking about when you say "the images I've seen," but if they're monitor images, there's no way they can communicate the depth you're looking for...
I think what you, and a lot of other users, fail to recognize is that your judgement may be clouded by the resolution jump. I mean this with all due respect. Because yes, the resolution is impressive. No discussion about that. But I am talking about tone-reproduction. And that may be the single biggest flaw in the MF discussions we had of recent. People from the 35mm side upgrade to a D800, may even have skipped some camera's before that, since it didn't bring them enough new, and then, surely, one will be blown away by the difference.
But I am talking about tonal reproduction, and that can easily be judged at even post stamp sized web thumbnails. Okay, I exaggerate slightly, but it has nothing to do with the size of the image. Yes, you can print A2 or whatever, but that is resolution, not tone reproduction.
The image you refer to for example looks completely flat, even though the cloud has enough tonal differentiation (i.e, it are dark gray clouds, not white clouds). Or the transition to the inverted edges, or to the blue sky patches. The sand & rubble exhibit no depth. Now, perhaps some of it may be attributable to JPEG compression and colormanagement, but it seems a recurring observation for me.
-
With due respect, Oscar, I doubt my judgment is clouded by the resolution jump. Let's face it, 36mp isn't even a 100% jump from 12mp, and I've been using 12mp cameras for many years. And yes, I know you're talking about tone reproduction. No, it can't be judged at post stamp sized web thumbs; it can't be judged on the basis of a web display at any size. Yes, the web display I referenced looks flat to me too. I'm not surprised. It's a compressed jpeg. Jpeg compression robs colors of their vibrancy and tones of their separation. The 13 x 19 print is vibrant, the subtlety of the gradations in the lower left as the distance increases is stunning, and the sand and rubble exhibit all the depth that's there.
I'm not sure, but it sounds to me as if you're making judgments on the basis of 72ppi jpeg displays on a computer monitor. You need to see if you can find some D800 prints made by a competent printer from files shot by someone who's taken all the steps necessary to maximize the results. It's very true that the camera itself can't overcome shortcomings in practice. You have to work at it to bring forth what the camera's capable of. I should add that the D800 isn't a camera you want for weddings or other high-volume shoots. The problem's not just the 50mb lossless compressed files. The main problem is that the camera will show up all the shortcomings in your technique.
I can't believe I'm involved in a discussion about equipment. Normally I stay far away from that kind of thing, and with this post I'm at the end of my deviation from normalcy. But for anyone who's shooting landscape or wabi sabi I think it's worth pointing out that there's a new tool worthy of examination.
-
I can't believe I'm involved in a discussion about equipment. Normally I stay far away from that kind of thing, and with this post I'm at the end of my deviation from normalcy. But for anyone who's shooting landscape or wabi sabi I think it's worth pointing out that there's a new tool worthy of examination.
We aren't discussing equipment, we are discussing tonal reproduction.
I remember very well when the original Canon 5D came out. Its reproduction was so far ahead of anything we had thus far, that both friend and fo have acclaimed its output. It was visible even on measly screensized JPGs. It didn't have particularly more resolution then what was already available, and in my personal opinion its strength was in darktone reproduction. Clearly, the D800 shows any other camera all 4 corners of the room and then some, regarding darktone reproduction so I would have expected to see more impressive results from the D800, and would have thought that the reactions regarding its output would certainly last a little longer than what we see currently.
And similarly, the specs of the Sony RX100 should bode very well for its results, but nothing particularly striking has come along. Which is odd. I find Bernard's images in that regard particularly interesting as he has shown to be well versed with Nikon cameras, and knows how to apply post-processsing, and produces some really nice landscapes at times, but as of yet, his newer images aren't even close to what he has produced in the past.
Again, I'm not trying to downplay the camera, I simply find it odd. For both cameras. Something is going on. I can't quite verbalize what I am seeing, but it is like separate color- and tonal-regions are individually compressed and/or expanded.
I am currently hinging on 2 options, and now I am going to discuss equipment so you're free to leave if you wish:
1. The new Sony sensors have less bit-depth than usual available for color, which compresses the colorreproduction, and possibly they then apply several processing techniques to equalize the colorperception, one of which could be local contrast enhancement on color, which would for example make some of the usual postprocessing significantly more difficult.
2. The colorprofiles for the camera are such that they would inhibit color compression.
I guess it's too early to tell, and certainly I don't have any hands on experience with either camera, so I suppose I should just shut up and move on.
-
I find Bernard's images in that regard particularly interesting as he has shown to be well versed with Nikon cameras, and knows how to apply post-processsing, and produces some really nice landscapes at times, but as of yet, his newer images aren't even close to what he has produced in the past.
I am not sure to share your view on this, but for what it's worth, most of my recent images were converted with LR as opposed to me using mostly C1 Pro in the past.
Still, I personally find the image below to have some of the nicest tones and colors I have ever produced. And that is shot with the D800 and Leica 180 f2.8 APO and converted with LR also.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7279/7587998334_47fe197b91_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
To my best knowledge all digital sensors are linear devices, so this talk about bit depth does not make any sense to me. A sensor collects photons, stores them as electrons, it has a full well capacity (the number of electrons it can store) and a readout noise. There are some other factors, like PRU, thermal noise.
As the sensor is linear, I would expect all sensors behave identically. Now, the sensor is monochrome, color is supplied by a CGA (Color Grid Array) in the front of the sensor. For good high ISO performance that CGA may be less orthogonal (have more overlap) that affects color rendition (or rather the amount of processing needed for color rendition) but CGA has nothing to with bit depth.
So, sorry but bit depth doesn't make any sense to me in this context.
Weather we present on screen or print tonal range is compressed. Any modern DSLR camera can reproduce a tonal range of at least 10 stops (1:1048) with some noise in the darks. Canon cameras seem to have relative narrow dynamic range, due to noisy ADC (Analog Digital converters) while Nikon, Pentax, Sony have a much less noise in the darkest shadows.
Prints may have a DR up to 2.3 (or so), but I would say that around 7 stops (1:128) would be more typical.
So:
1) You cannot show a DSLR image without tonal compression, so tonal compression is always a major parameter
2) A web image has a wider DR than a print (a good monitor has a dynamic range of at least 1:400)
3) Prints have least dynamic range
Also:
Presentation plays a major role. An image surrounded by white will have much less apparent DR (or tonal range) than an image surrendered by black.
A JPEG image with low compression is very hard to tell apart from a full range TIFF. Try to subtract a high quality JPEG image from an identical TIFF. What you will see is black.
Best regards
Erik
I think what you, and a lot of other users, fail to recognize is that your judgement may be clouded by the resolution jump. I mean this with all due respect. Because yes, the resolution is impressive. No discussion about that. But I am talking about tone-reproduction. And that may be the single biggest flaw in the MF discussions we had of recent. People from the 35mm side upgrade to a D800, may even have skipped some camera's before that, since it didn't bring them enough new, and then, surely, one will be blown away by the difference.
But I am talking about tonal reproduction, and that can easily be judged at even post stamp sized web thumbnails. Okay, I exaggerate slightly, but it has nothing to do with the size of the image. Yes, you can print A2 or whatever, but that is resolution, not tone reproduction.
The image you refer to for example looks completely flat, even though the cloud has enough tonal differentiation (i.e, it are dark gray clouds, not white clouds). Or the transition to the inverted edges, or to the blue sky patches. The sand & rubble exhibit no depth. Now, perhaps some of it may be attributable to JPEG compression and colormanagement, but it seems a recurring observation for me.
-
I am not sure to share your view on this, but for what it's worth, most of my recent images were converted with LR as opposed to me using mostly C1 Pro in the past.
Still, I personally find the image below to have some of the nicest tones and colors I have ever produced.
You're not expecting me to take that image seriously, do you? And if you do, could you show us a C1 rendition of the same file? Could you possibly make part of it available without any form of compression?
-
To my best knowledge all digital sensors are linear devices, so this talk about bit depth does not make any sense to me.
Sensors are NOT linear. No electronics are linear. The capture electronics just utilize the most linear part of the switching behavior of the sensor. But I don't want this to be about electronics. If it doesn't make sense, then that should exactly prompt you to look more closely at the results. With all of your electronics and equipment knowledge, do you find the results from the D800 that you have seen so far to be on par with your expectations?
I can clearly see the oddities, and I want other people to tell me that they notice it as well. I have been looking at digital pixels for the better half of my life, and I am pretty sure I can translate/filter oddities seen in screensized images. Look at the color inversions and banding happening in Bernard's image above. That is not just attributable to a possible double JPEG compression because of upload to flckr, it is something else. Something like too little bitdepth available for the saturation definition of the primaries. Then converting to sRGB which will fixate the color errors, then image compression which might emphasize that again.
-
You're not expecting me to take that image seriously, do you? And if you do, could you show us a C1 rendition of the same file? Could you possibly make part of it available without any form of compression?
This happens to be my favorite among the thousands of frames I have captured this year...
I would have to re-compute the pano from C1 renditions,... sorry, I'll be frank with you... convincing you is not worth the time. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sensors are NOT linear. No electronics are linear. The capture electronics just utilize the most linear part of the switching behavior of the sensor.
I agree that the world is almost never simple. I.e. "linear" things are almost never "linear" if studied with sufficient precision. But my experience and impression from others is that digital image sensors can for most purposes be considered as "linear" up until a hard clipping-point, if noise phenomena are modelled separately.
Do you have any references or examples that image sensors are non-linear in such a way as to cause problems?
-h
-
A JPEG image with low compression is very hard to tell apart from a full range TIFF. Try to subtract a high quality JPEG image from an identical TIFF. What you will see is black.
Indeed. What is occasionally described as poor jpeg image quality is likely:
1. That the image is compressed too much (obvious artifacts)
2. That the colorspace is altered (sRGB most commonly used)
The image compression itself is fairly transparent at high bitrates.
-h
-
Do you have any references or examples that image sensors are non-linear in such a way as to cause problems?
I don't understand this request, because I don't claim that, plus it is hardly relevant to the point at hand.
Image sensors have a distinct linear or almost linear part in their entire response behavior, which is what is utilized to produce linear RAW data. Measuring RAW files and concluding they are linear tells us precious little about the actual behavior of the sensor. I suspect that Canon's highlight expansion is an example of utilizing the non-linear behavior on the saturation side to expand dynamic range at the expense of color consistency. There have been experiments all over this forum with RAW digger where people want to find the clipping point of their sensor, but find it hard to do because the data clumps up on the saturation side, but doesn't seem to clip. It could well be that the new Sony chips utilize a similar strategy on the darkside.
-
To my best knowledge all digital sensors are linear devices, so this talk about bit depth does not make any sense to me.
...
Sensors are NOT linear. No electronics are linear.
...
Do you have any references or examples that image sensors are non-linear in such a way as to cause problems?
I don't understand this request, because I don't claim that, plus it is hardly relevant to the point at hand.
So what is it that you are saying? That image sensors are non-linear, but that it does not cause any problems?
-h
(I have tried to merge a clear and fair line of quotes. Please let me know if you disagree)
-
So what is it that you are saying? That image sensors are non-linear, but that it does not cause any problems?
No, my claim is that some image sensors are only partially linear, and engineers can opt to include the non-linear parts to expand dynamic range at the expense of colorconsistency.
But my claim in this thread is that the color-rendition of the D800 does not exhibit anywhere near the quality that one might expect considering all of its specs and DR.
-
So:
1) You cannot show a DSLR image without tonal compression, so tonal compression is always a major parameter
2) A web image has a wider DR than a print (a good monitor has a dynamic range of at least 1:400)
3) Prints have least dynamic rangePresentation plays a major role. An image surrounded by white will have much less apparent DR (or tonal range) than an image surrendered by black.
Best regards
Erik
This point makes my point about the largely pointless value of über cameras as valid alternatives to already very advanced camera equipment. I simply believe that people are being seduced into the 'new' for no better reason than that it's new.
Of course I have no reason to question their choices to do that; I simply don't buy that they are achieving anything that way.
There are so many other factors at play in photography that the actual machine is seldom the greatest one unless you have specialised in something esoteric. And I don't think making digital prints enters into that definition.
You guys really should read the Ansel book of letters; so much here is similar to what he wrote about... Soul, soul, effing soul!
Rob C
-
No, my claim is that some image sensors are only partially linear, and engineers can opt to include the non-linear parts to expand dynamic range at the expense of colorconsistency.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. All that I have seen seems to indicate very good linearity. If you know something else, it would be very interesting to get to see your sources?
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/anavsdig/index.htm&langpair=es%7Cen&hl=EN&ie=UTF-8
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/anavsdig/curvaloglog350d.gif)
"This chart is quite convincing to verify sensor linearity. We see how it responds linearly to input stimulus without presenting any asymptotic behavior in the area close to saturation as it does the film chemistry, and does so from a very low range of luminosities (approx. 9 diaphragms below the saturation analyzed the sensor), to the very point of saturation. "
I suspect that Canons "HTP" mode is simply underexposure to preserve highlights.
But my claim in this thread is that the color-rendition of the D800 does not exhibit anywhere near the quality that one might expect considering all of its specs and DR.
Isn't that a bit like claiming that CDs sounds worse than vinyl based on a random, freshly purchased CD compared to a random vinyl album sitting on your shelf? Is "color rendition" something that can be objectively measured by someone like dxo, or is it only a subjectively detectable quality?
Without shooting the same scene, under similar/fair conditions, processing using similar/fair settings, how are you able to conclude visually about the qualities of some camera?
I know that these suggestions make some people furious, but I ask because I think that it is very difficult (for me, at least) to visually inspect an image, and from that alone conclude much about the properties of the camera used to generate it, compared to the skills of the Photoshop operator. Any digital image is made up of a finite amount of information (bits & bytes). Therefore, one would expect an army of photoshop monkeys, given enough time, would be able to produce any image from any starting-point. Slightly more skilled monkeys may be able to do the same in less time. Not saying that this extreme actually happens, but it goes to show that photoshopping can be an important component in finished images.
-h
-
Perhaps. Perhaps not. All that I have seen seems to indicate very good linearity. If you know something else, it would be very interesting to get to see your sources?
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/anavsdig/index.htm&langpair=es%7Cen&hl=EN&ie=UTF-8
Guillermo is measuring RAW files, which (almost by definition, as I'm inclined to add) are linear.
It doesn't measure the actual sensor response.
Isn't that a bit like claiming that CDs sounds worse than vinyl based on a random, freshly purchased CD compared to a random vinyl album sitting on your shelf? Is "color rendition" something that can be objectively measured by someone like dxo, or is it only a subjectively detectable quality?
No, it's like claiming that we now have 24bit 196kHz uncompressed audio, but for some reason the original CD sounds better. And that you totally agree that that is odd and almost preposterous to claim, but that that is what the ears are telling…
Can color-rendition be measured. Well, DXO does have a color rendition metric, and from the samples I have seen so far, I would think that it should show up in some metric. Whether it be DXO measure method or something else. But it is obvious enough to be measured. I am fairly certain.
Without shooting the same scene, under similar/fair conditions, processing using similar/fair settings, how are you able to conclude visually about the qualities of some camera?
Mark has provided us with such an example over in the MF forum.
Slightly more skilled monkeys may be able to do the same in less time. Not saying that this extreme actually happens, but it goes to show that photoshopping can be an important component in finished images.
Errr, yes, as does panorama software adding another layer of manipulations. But I would like to immediately add that some color manipulations are near impossible to correct. Specifically those that deal with non-linear primaries.
And some errors are simply exaggerated when layered: i.e. JPEG blockiness will simply become worse when double compression is applied. Never less...
-
Guillermo is measuring RAW files, which (almost by definition, as I'm inclined to add) are linear.
It doesn't measure the actual sensor response.
But you have? Or you can point to someone that have? Or you are just speculating?
-h
-
No, it's like claiming that we now have 24bit 196kHz uncompressed audio, but for some reason the original CD sounds better. And that you totally agree that that is odd and almost preposterous to claim, but that that is what the ears are telling…
You seem to have missed my point. Comparing a CD recording of Aretha Franklin and a BluRay Audio recording of Britney Spears may be interesting, but allows us to draw very limited conclusions about the merits of each _format_. You or more likely to find your music preferences.
You need to compare the same, subjectively "good" recording that has been fairly mastered for both formats. That is a point that many audiophiles forget, and many photographers forget.
Errr, yes, as does panorama software adding another layer of manipulations. But I would like to immediately add that some color manipulations are near impossible to correct. Specifically those that deal with non-linear primaries.
...
If the raw file appears to be linear in all possible ways, then there is no non-linearity to correct? If non-linear raw files do occur, I challenge you to find an example.
I am assuming that exposure is chosen such that sensor saturation and noise-floor does not affect the final image. If you capture a scene of effectively 14 stops of DR using a camera of effectively 10 stops of DR, parts of the image will have significant errors that a better camera might record better.
-h
-
But you have? Or you can point to someone that have? Or you are just speculating?
No, I haven't, I am merely paraphrasing some of the more knowledgable people on this forum from the past, having looked up some internet info once in a while, and combining that with what little knowledge I have of electronics and physics and then coming to the conclusion that there is no relation between what is in the RAW file and what comes from the sensor.
This was relevant to me as I tried to define a correct color-calibration strategy for RAW conversion, something which I do feel comfortable and knowledgeable enough to fuzz about. The main question being: can RAW data be calibrated with a simple linear RGB matrix profile, or does it require full 3D table based corrections. The answer obviously depends entirely on the linearity of the sensor response, and very much NOT on the linearity of the RAW data in the file...
Anyway, here is some random source i just found, whereby I immediately want to add that the curve is likely simplified for illustrative purposes:
Random source (http://www.baslerweb.com/faq/search/results_2927.html?language=en&page=2#5624)
I recall searching in the past for Sony sensor spec sheets, and finding it, but currently I only find spectral response charts. Apparently that has become more pregnant to current designers if the Google algos are anything to go by.
-
No, I haven't, I am merely paraphrasing some of the more knowledgable people on this forum from the past, having looked up some internet info once in a while, and combining that with what little knowledge I have of electronics and physics and then coming to the conclusion that there is no relation between what is in the RAW file and what comes from the sensor.
I have only seen this idea presented once before on this forum. That forum user could not present any sources supporting his view, and the people who I respect for their knowledge seemed to agree that he was wrong. That is the reason that I suggest that you present actual sources.
can RAW data be calibrated with a simple linear RGB matrix profile, or does it require full 3D table based corrections.
It obviously _can_ be calibrated using anything. The question is, perhaps, what can be accomplished using the different techniques (and what your aims are).
I believe that camera primaries are a very crude approximation to the primary sensitivity in typical human eyes. Two different colors might look identical to the camera sensor. You might want to prioritize some tones over others, you want a smooth model, and you have access to a limited set of (error-prone) color response samples. I would assume that image noise (both in measurement and in later regular images) could be a reason to do non-linear calibration, even if the basic model of linear, clipped and noisy sensor holds. Further, there might be offset values, biases, slightly variable scaling or other details in the digital number representation etc that serve to conceal the underlying linear model. Finally, Nikon are known (?) to use non-linear representation in raw files as a means to save storage space. If you are operating directly on that data, you would have to have a non-linearity in the characterization (same with jpeg gamma-encoded values).
Iliah Borg on the argyllCMS mailing list:
"My matrix-based 5D3 profiles are OK. I can confirm that some few tints of yellow do have wrong renditions due to the filters used in the camera, but those are in a very narrow range of Lab. LUT profiles attempting to accommodate for these variations usually make things worse sacrificing profile smoothness.
"
The answer obviously depends entirely on the linearity of the sensor response, and very much NOT on the linearity of the RAW data in the file...
Sorry, I fail to see that. The calibration will be used to refer raw data back to some known reference? Whatever happens in-between is an irrelevant black box as seen from the calibration procedure. When I calibrate my screen it really does not matter if the gamma response is a physical attribute of the display, or if it is only a driver/firmware software thing. What matters is "how does the physical panel respond if I input a pixel valued e.g. [16 22 21]?".
If camera sensors are significantly non-linear, one would expect to observe this in the raw file. Strange behaviour is to be expected close to the top and bottom of the sensing range. If one does not observe it in the raw file, then either the camera manufacturer was able to perfectly compensate the non-linearity (in which case sensor non-linearity is nothing to worry about), or the sensor is really linear (in which case sensor non-linearity is nothing to worry about)
-h
-
Hi,
The sensor itself measures captured electrons, that is charging a capacitor. I'd say that it pretty linear. That charge is read as a voltage which in all probability needs preamplification. The pre amps are probably linear but even if they would not be as the output signal can be linearised. As long as the data numbers in the raw file are proportional to the number of collected electrons the device would be linear.
The data undergo significant processing before they are converted into a device dependent rendition.
Best regards
Erik
But you have? Or you can point to someone that have? Or you are just speculating?
-h
-
This thread demonstrates, as if it needed more demonstration, that talking about equipment is a losing proposition.
-
This thread demonstrates, as if it needed more demonstration, that talking about equipment is a losing proposition.
And it demonstrates equally well how easily even quite serious people fall for trolls.
-
Yes,
You are right. Sorry for derailing the discussion.
Regarding the original topic, my impression is that Nikon introduced a camera many were waiting for with D800, better in many senses than the D700 and much more affordable than the D3X.
Best regards
Erik
This thread demonstrates, as if it needed more demonstration, that talking about equipment is a losing proposition.
-
Nevertheless, there does appear to be an interesting paradox in the DXO measurements that I sometimes notice when comparing the graphs.
Oscar mentioned that the Canon 5D was considered to be ahead of its time regarding tonal range and color rendition.
Just out of curiosity I compared the measurements, at the pixel level, for the 5D and the D800 on the DXOMark website. I was surprised to find that the 5D pixel, at almost 3x the size of the D800 pixel, has about equal performance with regard to SNR at 18%, Tonal Range and Color Sensitivity. This is a good indication of the technological progress that has been made since the introduction of the 5D, the fact that a pixel almost 1/3rd the size can have the same performance with regard to noise and color sensitivity.
However, here is where I see as a paradox. The D800 pixel has almost 2.5 stops greater Dynamic Range than the 5D pixel, yet has no greater tonal range. How come?
If the Tonal Range measurement describes the number of distinct tones the sensor can record over its entire dynamic range from the deepest shadows to the brightest highlights, then one might expect the D800 pixel to also have a greater tonal range than the 5D pixel, if it has a greater DR. Those 2.5 stops in the deepest shadows also have a tonal range, surely.
I can only conclude therefore that the 5D pixel must have a greater tonal range within the useable DR that the pixels from both cameras have in common, that is, the range from the deep or low midtones to the brightest highlights. The entire tonal range within those darkest 2.5 stops that the D800 can record, but the 5D cannot, must be at the expense of the tonal range above those lowest 2.5 stops.
That's how I see it, but I might be wrong. My understanding of such technical matters is quite limited.