From: Ray Fischer on
bugbear <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>NameHere wrote:
>> If a value of 0 from a sensor's
>> photosite is converted to 0 in the JPG file, and a value of 1024, 4096, or
>> 16384 (10 to 14 bit dependent) from a photosite is converted to a value of
>> 255 in the JPG file, then the JPG file represents the whole dynamic range.
>
>Agreed. However colour resolution may have been lost.

So what?

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Paul Furman on
bugbear wrote:
> NameHere wrote:
>> I see the correct color balance and exposure on the LCD or
>> EVF *before* I take the shot.
>
> Since colour perception is dependant on ambient light,
> I think you're full of ..it.

I can't see someone routinely adjusting white balance, contrast &
saturation for each shot. I do that for focus stacking somewhat because
I don't want the huge raw files but for general photography there's no
way to really get a good look at things still you get home.

Of course it's possible to take nice photos with a canned jpeg output
from the camera but more flexibility is more flexibility.

I agree 14 bit is overkill. I played with it and could see no value.
From: LOL! on
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:14:45 +0000, bugbear
<bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:

>NameHere wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:38:59 +0000, bugbear
>> <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>>
>
>> They also do a fine job of
>> retaining the full dynamic range of the sensor in the JPG file to begin
>> with.
>
>This is trivial; here an alogorithm:
>
>RAW 0 -> JEPG 0
>RAW MAX -> JPEG MAX
>
>You speak as if this is some kind of achievment.

Ask any DSLR owner who worships RAW and you'll find out that it is very
much some kind of major achievement. Apparently none of their cameras are
capable of something so simple. They're always clamouring how they get two
or more stops of dynamic range out of the RAW data compared to the JPG file
their camera can produce. Go ahead, ask them. They're even stupidly willing
to spend an extra $100-$200 for the required software needed to repair what
their camera's firmware failed to do correctly in the first place. Then on
top of that they waste even more valuable hours of their life trying to
correct all the errors from their camera's firmware on every snapshot they
take.

LOL!



From: Bristolian on
RichA wrote:

>
> Today I had the displeasure of seeing 12 cheap old Pentax 35mm-70mm
> zoom lenses. PURE plastic. All 12 were broken. Not because the
> plastic broke however, but because the glue needed to glue crappy
> plastic parts together failed. Metal camera parts don't have that
> problem, because in most cases, they SCREW them together.

And screws never come undone do they ;-)

--
Regards


Bristolian
From: Bristolian on
NameHere wrote:

>
> People capable of using good cameras are just as capable with lesser
> cameras. If someone hands me an Instamatic-126 camera because that's all
> they have, I'll still be able to return to them a photo from that camera
> worthy of framing for anyone's wall.
>
Remaining drivel snipped for brevity and to prevent the proliferation of
WMD (Words of Mis-Direction)

There used to be a children's program on BBC tv every afternoon that
would suite you down to the ground (or preferably 6 feet under it). It
was called Jackanory and they told a different fairy story each day :-)

--
Regards


Bristolian
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Prev: D90 body prices falling steeply
Next: Sigma wide zoom = junk