Canon 5D Mk4 announced

[eronald]

I have the usual issue of not understanding what the fuss is about, and why DNG always creeps into the discussion.

This is a case of spatially offset multiple level sensing, the Fujis did it too. No theoretical innovation here. For me the problem is there is no "canonical" image. But maybe that was the case with Bayer also?  To me, reconstituted imagery  is hamburger rather than steak. Adobe serve a mediocre meal which please most comers, while Illiah is a master of cooking the hamburger for gourmets, but -no disrespect- that still doesn't unchop the meat. And you still have different sampling frequencies for RB and G, with all the afferent effects.

Edmund

[Iliah]

I have the usual issue of not understanding what the fuss is about, and why DNG always creeps into the discussion.

This is a case of spatially offset multiple level sensing, the Fujis did it too. No theoretical innovation here. For me the problem is there is no "canonical" image. But maybe that was the case with Bayer also?  To me, reconstituted imagery  is hamburger rather than steak. Illiah is a master of cooking the hamburger, but that still doesn't unchop the meat.

Edmund

Life in Russia teaches you to cook from whatever you have available. Ever heard of kasha cooked from an axe?  http://lukoshko.net/story/kasha-iz-topora.htm

[eronald]

Life in Russia teaches you to cook from whatever you have available. Ever heard of kasha cooked from an axe?  http://lukoshko.net/story/kasha-iz-topora.htm

I'm sorry it's written in strange monky letters which I cannot effort to understand

Edmund

[Iliah]

I'm sorry it's written in strange monky letters which I cannot effort to understand

Edmund

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Soup

[Zorki5]

why DNG always creeps into the discussion.

Because it is much more appropriate to discuss its inherent limitations when we have real case on our hands, with some real technical details.

Anyway, it is much, much more appropriate to discuss it here than in a "dedicated thread": "Oh dear Lord, ACR xx.yy is out, and it still does not support Z! If only those stupid, stubborn manufacturers adopted DNG! Let's file another petition blah blah blah"...

[digitaldog]

Anyway, it is much, much more appropriate to discuss it here than in a "dedicated thread": "Oh dear Lord, ACR xx.yy is out, and it still does not support Z! If only those stupid, stubborn manufacturers adopted DNG!

Which of course would be true; ACR, LR and every 3rd party raw converter today would be able to access that (our) raw data (new feature or otherwise). Today, only one will (new feature or otherwise) and that's the one from Canon. If you don't think it cost companies and thus their customers money for this updating silliness, probably not worth continuing.

[scyth]

I have the usual issue of not understanding what the fuss is about, and why DNG always creeps into the discussion.

because ACR/LR have a huge marketshare __AND__ the way Adobe code works /it is their strategic goal/ : raw -> (Adobe code capable to do conversion) -> dng -> ACR/LR must be exactly the same as raw ->  ACR/LR

[scyth]

Which of course would be true; ACR, LR and every 3rd party raw converter today would be able to access that (our) raw data (new feature or otherwise). Today, only one will (new feature or otherwise) and that's the one from Canon. If you don't think it cost companies and thus their customers money for this updating silliness, probably not worth continuing.

and did Adobe update the DNG standard to provide the documented way to use sub sensel data frame for the purposes DPP uses it ? so the same question comes again as when Panasonic introduced the optics correction in RW2 raw files and the time it took Adobe to get the new version of DNG standard out to account for those new features...  as many times noted (including this thread already) - the core issue is that manufacturer does not want make the information public (DNG or not - does not matter)... so dcraw code and refactored/enhanced derivatives like libraw are acting as DNG standard (in terms of describing how to access and interpret data)... and why is it that you never worry about Adobe owning your parametric adjustments instead of documenting them so that you can take your work /namely raw conversion you invested your time in/ elsewhere ?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

IMHO well worth working to make that sky rendered not as a blob

Hi Iliah,

Yes, sky is low enough in detail that both half pixels see approximately the same input. Things may be different in areas with very high detail, near the Nyquist frequency, and with a Bayer CFA that has a different sampling density for Green versus Red/Blue. Small specular highlights, stars / starbursts / glint, highlights on jewelry, sharp roof edges or similar.

Cheers,
Bart

[Iliah]

Hi Iliah,

Yes, sky is low enough in detail that both half pixels see approximately the same input. Things may be different in areas with very high detail, near the Nyquist frequency, and with a Bayer CFA that has a different sampling density for Green versus Red/Blue. Small specular highlights, stars / starbursts / glint, highlights on jewelry, sharp roof edges or similar.

Cheers,
Bart

Well, I'm not ready to make that much of the tiny difference between those two subpixels. If you look at what demosaicking does, you may see the error there outweights many optical factors. Not to mention that the problem with blown-out sky is important enough in itself to be addressed.

[digitaldog]

and did Adobe update the DNG standard to provide the documented way to use sub sensel data frame for the purposes DPP uses it ?

No idea but does DPP support DNG? If not, it's moot.

[Iliah]

because ACR/LR have a huge marketshare __AND__ the way Adobe code works /it is their strategic goal/ : raw -> (Adobe code capable to do conversion) -> dng -> ACR/LR must be exactly the same as raw ->  ACR/LR

Not sure converting to dng is one of strategic goals for Adobe.

[digitaldog]

Not sure converting to dng is one of strategic goals for Adobe.

Or as many incorrectly suggest, a means as a forced upgrade (just saw that silly idea today on the Adobe forums). Without a free DNG converter, people with older versions of ACR/LR would have to update their software to use a new camera. They can work with their old Adobe software with the new cameras as long as their computers/OS can run that old Adobe software product. Adobe gets heat for providing a free method of accessing the data they own and should be able to use from day one of a camera release in older Adobe software products. The horror, the horror!

[Iliah]

Or as many incorrectly suggest, a means as a forced upgrade (just saw that silly idea today on the Adobe forums). Without a free DNG converter, people with older versions of ACR/LR would have to update their software to use a new camera. They can work with their old Adobe software with the new cameras as long as their computers/OS can run that old Adobe software product. Adobe gets heat for providing a free method of accessing the data they own and should be able to use from day one of a camera release in older Adobe software products. The horror, the horror!

Well, I think we can thank Barry Pearson for his over-zeal.

[eronald]

Well, I'm not ready to make that much of the tiny difference between those two subpixels. If you look at what demosaicking does, you may see the error there outweights many optical factors. Not to mention that the problem with blown-out sky is important enough in itself to be addressed.

Off-forum I said that if the pixels are square, then the 5D4 would be a 45Mp camera if correctly processed; somebody smarter than me pointed out that if it were monochrome it would be 60Mp. So I think one might agree that those subpixels can be made to work a bit harder by means of smart de-bayering or rather de-canoning. 


Edmund

[Iliah]

They agreed to dolls and mirrors, problem solved

[eronald]

They agreed to dolls and mirrors, problem solved

Ah, more color, less neutrality. Neat.

Edmund

[eronald]

Actually the IV is a good example of why a company needs to have its own converter.
DNG considered harmful.

Edmund

[Phil Indeblanc]

How did they miss the chance to release this camera without an AA filter?
Didn't Canon learn that the AA is mostly a non issue for stills? And this being mainly a still, they could have done a version without a AA. If this didn't have the AA filter, I would be excited. I do wish it competed to at least 36-42mpixels to at least edge the Sony.
I guess this means wait for the 5DsRII

[scyth]

Not sure converting to dng is one of strategic goals for Adobe.

I did not say converting (as in Adobe wants all people to convert their non DNG raw files to DNG)... I said that Adobe writes the code in such manner that both options will produce the identical result/output... they have to