tgm Posted January 3, 2010 Share #41 Posted January 3, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) jan,the tonal range of the scene did not range from 0-255. as you see the histogramm does not touch to the left, so the picture is not underexposed. certainly 2/3 stops of addional exposure are possible but it would render the scene brighter than it was. also,let me reiterate, even underexposure does not increase noise. only if you push the highlights afterwards. anyway, no matter, the S2 is back and my money too. peter I am a little bit puzzled, you buy a camera for 20000 Euro which provides excellent image quaility, I guesss nobody will seriously question that, but you feel that the quality is no as good as you hope or expect, or it should be (according to what claims)? You make a lot of noise here in the forum about unacceptable noise at low ISO. A few days later you give the camera back and get you money back. There are lots of reviews on various cameras available in the internet, and (most) of them try to be fair. They put things into a context, making meaningful comparisons by showing files with equivalent exposure, corresponding size and so. Nowadays, image quality can be measured, statements there is noise, but there should be no noise are essentially stupid. If there is no noise, something is wrong, it is a law of physics. The question, is how much noise you want to accept. My view, the discussion about noise at 160 ASA is completely academic, you will not see the noise in a print. If you are really interested in noise and the potential of modern sensor, there exist a lot of scientific and also easily accessible literature, e.g. Clarkvision: Does Pixel Size Matter and other web sites by R.N. Clark. If you look into the various tables, you will recognize, that the most recent Canon sensors are at the physical limits, and that the Kodak sensors are not as good in terms of read out noise. This comes visible at high ISO. So maybe you should wait a few years, then all sensors are at the physical limits and there is no need to worry about noise which is somewhat higher than laws of physics allow. But it is an illusion, that once sensors without noise will exits. Don't get my wrong, many comments and comparisons are interesting, but a careful work and certain quality standards are needed, especially if you are among the first who are in the unique position to report on a new camera. That is what I was missing in your posts. Thomas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 3, 2010 Posted January 3, 2010 Hi tgm, Take a look here S2 low iso. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
telewatt Posted January 4, 2010 Share #42 Posted January 4, 2010 jan,the tonal range of the scene did not range from 0-255. as you see the histogramm does not touch to the left, so the picture is not underexposed. certainly 2/3 stops of addional exposure are possible but it would render the scene brighter than it was. also,let me reiterate, even underexposure does not increase noise. only if you push the highlights afterwards. anyway, no matter, the S2 is back and my money too. peter Hi Peter, the picture of the histogram was not very big......now you can see on the left side it beginns with "0" . It is a very thin line, not much black in the picture. You lost some quality in C1 with this settings and with the exposure too. regards, Jan Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/108101-s2-low-iso/?do=findComment&comment=1173428'>More sharing options...
markowich Posted January 4, 2010 Author Share #43 Posted January 4, 2010 Hi Peter, the picture of the histogram was not very big......now you can see on the left side it beginns with "0" . It is a very thin line, not much black in the picture. You lost some quality in C1 with this settings and with the exposure too. regards, Jan [ATTACH]181112[/ATTACH] jan, yes there is not much black in the picture. of course i can move the blackpoint. this is what mr schultze from leica recommends as default for S2 files---)))) peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted January 4, 2010 Author Share #44 Posted January 4, 2010 I am a little bit puzzled, you buy a camera for 20000 Euro which provides excellent image quaility, I guesss nobody will seriously question that, but you feel that the quality is no as good as you hope or expect, or it should be (according to what claims)? You make a lot of noise here in the forum about unacceptable noise at low ISO. A few days later you give the camera back and get you money back. There are lots of reviews on various cameras available in the internet, and (most) of them try to be fair. They put things into a context, making meaningful comparisons by showing files with equivalent exposure, corresponding size and so. Nowadays, image quality can be measured, statements there is noise, but there should be no noise are essentially stupid. If there is no noise, something is wrong, it is a law of physics. The question, is how much noise you want to accept. My view, the discussion about noise at 160 ASA is completely academic, you will not see the noise in a print. If you are really interested in noise and the potential of modern sensor, there exist a lot of scientific and also easily accessible literature, e.g. Clarkvision: Does Pixel Size Matter and other web sites by R.N. Clark. If you look into the various tables, you will recognize, that the most recent Canon sensors are at the physical limits, and that the Kodak sensors are not as good in terms of read out noise. This comes visible at high ISO. So maybe you should wait a few years, then all sensors are at the physical limits and there is no need to worry about noise which is somewhat higher than laws of physics allow. But it is an illusion, that once sensors without noise will exits. Don't get my wrong, many comments and comparisons are interesting, but a careful work and certain quality standards are needed, especially if you are among the first who are in the unique position to report on a new camera. That is what I was missing in your posts. Thomas thomas, first of all thank you for your scientific information on sensor technology. after all i learned from you abou the quality of canon sensors in the noise department, something that i find really striking. just to reiterate i have other cameras with kodak sensors and they perform better at base iso than the S2 does. peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telewatt Posted January 4, 2010 Share #45 Posted January 4, 2010 jan, yes there is not much black in the picture. of course i can move the blackpoint. this is what mr schultze from leica recommends as default for S2 files---))))peter Peter, the best way for good results out of S2 files is not to do mistakes in C1... regards, Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted January 4, 2010 Author Share #46 Posted January 4, 2010 Peter, the best way for good results out of S2 files is not to do mistakes in C1... regards, Jan jan, i understand that. but whatever you, the critical grey scale where noise gets worse will show up somewhere in the picture. the idea was not to PP optimally but to stay close to defaults. and btw, the only way to get rid of the noise by profiling is to make the critical area darker. if you don't like that then it is back to some kind of nonreversible denoising algorithm. peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telewatt Posted January 4, 2010 Share #47 Posted January 4, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) jan, i understand that. but whatever you, the critical grey scale where noise gets worse will show up somewhere in the picture. the idea was not to PP optimally but to stay close to defaults.and btw, the only way to get rid of the noise by profiling is to make the critical area darker. if you don't like that then it is back to some kind of nonreversible denoising algorithm. peter Peter, doing the settings in the RAW Converter (C1) is part of "taking the picture"....to do PP otimally is a different story... It would be interesting to see the Camera RAW befor C1 to do the right settings in C1... regards, Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted January 4, 2010 Author Share #48 Posted January 4, 2010 Peter, doing the settings in the RAW Converter (C1) is part of "taking the picture"....to do PP otimally is a different story...It would be interesting to see the Camera RAW befor C1 to do the right settings in C1... regards, Jan i wanted a situation where strong midtones occur. do you want the RAW to play with? p Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telewatt Posted January 4, 2010 Share #49 Posted January 4, 2010 i wanted a situation where strong midtones occur. do you want the RAW to play with?p why not..but it is a large RAW..if you like to send it...?.. scheffner-foto@t-online.de regards, Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted January 4, 2010 Share #50 Posted January 4, 2010 ... the idea was not to PP optimally but to stay close to defaults... It's not a P&S camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted January 4, 2010 Author Share #51 Posted January 4, 2010 It's not a P&S camera. ? peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.