From: ASAAR on
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 13:52:19 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

> That Fuji camera does not employ the high DR sensors of Fujifilm fame
> (aka Super CCD SR II and similar).

True, but that doesn't mean that if doesn't offer DR. It does,
but it's not based on the CCD sensor. The expanded DR mode also
isn't usable at ISO 800 and above.


> Note of art: if you are concerned enough to want to capture the subtle
> curves of a white car in bright sunlight, then it seems to make sense
> that you get the right camera. To me that would be the Fujifilm S3|S5.
> Good news is you can find a lot of Nikon lenses (used or new) for it.

The bad news is that it's going to require a much more expensive
camera and lenses, when all that may be needed is to use exposure
compensation on the existing P&S camera.

From: John McWilliams on
David J Taylor wrote:
> ray wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:40:55 -0400, Bob Donahue wrote:
>>
>>> I take a lot of pictures at car shows. The digital cameras I've had
>>> to date, have trouble rendering white cars in direct sunlight. You
>>> can't see the curves of the body panels, they come out pure white
>>> with no shading! Cars that are not white come out beautifully. I'm
>>> in the market for a new "point and shoot" camera. I've narrowed my
>>> choice down to the Fujifilm FinePix F100fd or the Nikon CoolPix 610.
>>> Both of these models are advertised as having special "dynamic
>>> range" modes. Which one would be my best bet for avoiding washed out
>>> highlights?
>> If you shoot jpeg, you have 8 bits of dynamic range (in each RGB
>> component) - that's it - because that's all the camera's jpeg format
>> will support. If you shoot raw you'll have 12 bits or more. The
>> discontinued Kodak P series EVF long zooms will shoot raw as well as
>> jpeg or tiff. You can frequently find them on Kodak's online store at
>> great prices.
>
> Ray, you are mistaken here. If anything, JPEG actually offers the greater
> dynamic range because it uses non-linear gamma-corrected encoding, as
> opposed to the linear coding of RAW. What JPEG lacks, however, is
> precision of representing light levels, plus ths "loss" due to compression
> (in most JPEGs).

RAW files can be converted to a viewable format by non-linear or linear,
gamma corrected, or not, depending on the software and settings of the
user.

Saying JPEGs have more dynamic range is simply wrong.

--
john mcwilliams
From: David J Taylor on
John McWilliams wrote:
[]
> RAW files can be converted to a viewable format by non-linear or
> linear, gamma corrected, or not, depending on the software and
> settings of the user.
>
> Saying JPEGs have more dynamic range is simply wrong.

To clarify, John, I was talking about the JPEG files which come straight
from the camera, not those from a RAW to JPEG conversion.

Given the class of camera under consideration (Fuji F100fd and Nikon
Coolpix 610), would you like to name one which uses a linear rather than a
gamma corrected representation in the JPEG? I would be very surprised if
any did.

David


From: David J Taylor on
ASAAR wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:11:29 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
>
> Rats! This is a continuation of the prematurely posted reply that
> this laptop's keyboard has a tendency to produce . . .
>
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:11:29 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> It does not concern me that we disagree, and am happy to stand my
>> ground on any technical argument, and to learn from others who know
>> more.
>
> If only that was true. You gave no technical arguments based on
> facts or observations, only assumption based opinions that I
> demonstrated were false. Instead of trying to defend your very weak
> arguments, or show why mine might have been mistaken, you choose the
> "see no evil, hear no evil" lack of concern and happily stand your
> ground.
>
>
>> However, many aspects of image quality are subjective, and there will
>> never be 100% agreement. You see similar disagreements in audio as
>> well - those who prefer the "vinyl" sound.
>
> I'm well aware of those disagreements, and probably share your
> opinions here as opposed to those with "golden ears" that never seem
> to be able to convincingly pass blind A/B tests. I actually recall
> (though not many specifics, such as the magazine or the reviewer's
> name) that many years ago a critic was taken to task when his
> hyperbolically glowing review of some very expensive audio gear was
> later shown that it was outperformed by some very modest equipment.
> His defense was that he never actually provided distortion figures
> or other measured data, but only said that the high end gear had
> something like, IIRC, a luxurious, liquid golden sound.
>
> Your mistake here is that the reviews I referenced did not provide
> subjective opinions. The did their own tests and showed the
> results. Not in quite the detail DPReview is known for (which
> hasn't yet tested either of the cameras the OP asked about), but
> certainly with far more objectivity than stating that due to an
> implausible high ISO mode, neither the camera's quality nor the
> manufacturer could be trusted. As I said, Panasonic (and others)
> are also marketing driven and their cameras have high ISO capability
> that is far worse than what Fuji delivers, yet you have an
> extraordinary fondness for most products Panasonic.
>
>
>> Personally, I tend to trust something less if it appears to be
>> marketing driven, rather than if it is engineering driven, and hence
>> I feel that one should be wary of any small-sensor camera which
>> offers ISO 12800, whoever manufacturers it.
>
> You're just choosing a figure that you don't want to believe and
> using it to tar an entire line of cameras. Nobody has said that the
> results at ISO 12,800 are fabulous, just usable as a last resort to
> get images that other cameras would have to pass on.
>
>
>
>> The OP should check the results for themselves, and judge whether
>> that are acceptable. I do like the idea behind the Fuji dual-sensor
>> CCD, and If the results at lower ISOs offer what is needed, then the
>> camera may be an excellent tool for the OP's job.
>
> But you did everything you could to make sure that they should
> share your opinion that the camera and other Fuji products can't
> really be trusted. As usual, when your absurd statements are
> pointed out, rather than apologize for hasty ill founded statements,
> you ignore that you ever made them and hide behind reasonable
> sounding platitudes that you are likely to soon abandon. To recap.:
>
>> Does the F100fd offer 12MP at ISO 12,800? If so, I would expect the
>> results to be completely unusable, and hence I would have
>> considerable reduced trust in a camera (or should it be the
>> company?), which has unusable settings?
>
> Your expectations are wrong. ISO 12,800 clearly isn't going to be
> used by anyone to produce anything approaching gallery quality
> images. But that's NOT what very high ISO shots from ANY camera are
> used for. For use in extremely low light, it will produce small
> 4"x6" snapshots of usable, if not good quality. Based on your own
> statements, the failure to back them up, and the way you continue to
> ignore points that you can't defend, *everyone* in these newsgroups
> should have much less trust in your opinions than in manufacturer's
> marketing hype, that is rarely if ever as off base as your opinions.
> This is truly sad, as I'm quite sure that you, unlike some others
> here, really know better.

ASAAR, if you have some specific technical points, related to the OP's
desire for a high dynamic range, I will happily discuss them with you.

If you feel I have not backed up my opinions sufficiently, I will try and
expand or explain.

David


From: Alan Browne on
David J Taylor wrote:
> ray wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:40:55 -0400, Bob Donahue wrote:
>>
>>> I take a lot of pictures at car shows. The digital cameras I've had
>>> to date, have trouble rendering white cars in direct sunlight. You
>>> can't see the curves of the body panels, they come out pure white
>>> with no shading! Cars that are not white come out beautifully. I'm
>>> in the market for a new "point and shoot" camera. I've narrowed my
>>> choice down to the Fujifilm FinePix F100fd or the Nikon CoolPix 610.
>>> Both of these models are advertised as having special "dynamic
>>> range" modes. Which one would be my best bet for avoiding washed out
>>> highlights?
>> If you shoot jpeg, you have 8 bits of dynamic range (in each RGB
>> component) - that's it - because that's all the camera's jpeg format
>> will support. If you shoot raw you'll have 12 bits or more. The
>> discontinued Kodak P series EVF long zooms will shoot raw as well as
>> jpeg or tiff. You can frequently find them on Kodak's online store at
>> great prices.
>
> Ray, you are mistaken here. If anything, JPEG actually offers the greater
> dynamic range because it uses non-linear gamma-corrected encoding, as
> opposed to the linear coding of RAW. What JPEG lacks, however, is
> precision of representing light levels, plus ths "loss" due to compression
> (in most JPEGs).

JPG's 8 bits/color is compressed DR, not more DR. The 'loss' is in
graduation 'tween colors. JPG cannot contain an expression of more
information than the original raw, compressed or otherwise.

The key point is that in-camera JPG leaves you with much less in terms
of options than post-processed raw.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.