Eastgreenlander Posted January 18, 2012 Share #61 Posted January 18, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) CCD is a tad more sharp then CMOS in base ISO and the colors can be replicated in chip design or in import presets to near kodachrome colors. I guess the advantage of CCD in colors are non existant. The ISO preformance of CMOS, less battery drainage and live view. How is CMOS not a better advantage over CCD? --- I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=65.613486,-37.637309 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Hi Eastgreenlander, Take a look here Kodachrome. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
manolo Posted January 18, 2012 Share #62 Posted January 18, 2012 Leica is an exception--by using a DNG their format is anything but proprietary, and I have to believe they've talked with Adobe on the M9 and S2 support. That I still prefer C1's approach to Leica files might be, I suppose, a result of Phase's experience with Kodak sensors... but it's true that LR / ACR takes its own approach to colour, contrast and blackpoint compared with other converters. Not much talk about Aperture. I start by undoing the default settings and then working towards what I find in the image. So I feel like I start with the raw data and work from there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted January 21, 2012 Share #63 Posted January 21, 2012 Not much talk about Aperture.I start by undoing the default settings and then working towards what I find in the image. So I feel like I start with the raw data and work from there. Yeah, I have no idea, really, what working with Aperture is all about. The output from early versions of Aperture was simply disappointing in terms of detail and colour... so I never went there. It's all about time, you know You can always explore every image with a raw converter and get what you need; the logical extension of that is going into Photoshop and from there you can absolutely do a ton of things, of course. In that sense, the sensor / filter / camera system really doesn't matter that much by way of absolutely advantages, its true. I can get, in terms of colour values, what I want from an iPhone. But--and this is a big but--it takes too long to do that when working with a lot of files (and I'm not pretending an iPhone has the other characteristics I want). This is the same for other cameras/ converter systems, so compared with the M9 (DMR/S2) it just takes longer for me to get what I want (especially with skin) with, say, Nikon-Sony produced sensor / cameras. It's all about time, you know Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted January 26, 2012 Share #64 Posted January 26, 2012 Apart from the sensor, the color rendition also depends on the raw developer used. In my view, Raw Photo Processor (RPP – Mac only) gives the most film-like look. Using the K64 preset in RPP gives the look that is the most reminiscent of Kodachrome, in addition to producing the best resolution of any raw processor that I have used. I started a thread in this forum, which you can read by clicking here. —Mitch/Bangkok Tristes Tropiques? No, They Have a Strip Mall in Chiang Mai Too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.