TonyField Posted March 8, 2015 Share #221 Posted March 8, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) True but with post processing skills many can be made to be mediocre or better. I have to do this all of the time on interiors made under energy efficient lights and mixed lights. ... I am of the opinion that every "decent" image you get out-of-camera can be made significantly better with post-processing. Decent image content is only the first step. If you look at so many images of scenic, portrait, fashion, architecture, etc. the image processed in photoshop is significantly better than the OOC imag. The final "art" is really determined by your vision. If you cannot see tones, colours, etc, and translate that into photoshop, you will result in mediocre images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 Hi TonyField, Take a look here CCD vs CMOS: Can you tell which is which?{merged}. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
tenmangu81 Posted March 8, 2015 Share #222 Posted March 8, 2015 I then used Lightroom to do a rough match of the images using only global slider adjustments. No Photoshop. No adjustment brushes or any other local adjustments. David That's the problem, David. If the votes are 50/50, it's only because you adjusted the pictures to look alike using Lightroom sliders. It would have been better if you hadn't do it. And anyway, we know that rendering depends a lot on the used software (LR, Capture One, DxO, etc.). Thank you for your effort, anyway. The pictures are very good for both cameras, and you can achieve excellent results from either, using only some light adjustments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfarkas Posted March 8, 2015 Author Share #223 Posted March 8, 2015 That's the problem, David. If the votes are 50/50, it's only because you adjusted the pictures to look alike using Lightroom sliders.It would have been better if you hadn't do it. And anyway, we know that rendering depends a lot on the used software (LR, Capture One, DxO, etc.). Thank you for your effort, anyway. The pictures are very good for both cameras, and you can achieve excellent results from either, using only some light adjustments. This was the premise of the experiment. It wasn't a contest between cameras. It was to test whether or not there is indeed a non-reproducible unique CCD look. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted March 8, 2015 Share #224 Posted March 8, 2015 I sometimes feel reluctant to discard any information contained in a file during processing, which leads me to sometimes process CMOS images or MM images too flat. I think there are a lot of people that have that same problem. I have to this point not seen a single photograph taken with the Pentax medium format camera (CMOS) that can hold a candle to any of the photographs taken with the old Phase One CCD backs. I am sure that this could be remedied in post-processing, but maybe users are simply guided in the wrong direction with these files. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenshacker Posted March 8, 2015 Share #225 Posted March 8, 2015 The DNG-8 is just a trivial logarithmic quantization of linear sensor values. Therefore it cannot be the cause of the issue. . It is an exponential function, int( sqrt( i* 4)), reserves only 74 values for the upper 1/2 of the pixel values. That is according to some discussions on this forum. The conversion table is stored in the DNG file as 256 16-bit values. I will take a look at the DNG-8 file. At the upper portion of the scale, it is throwing away 7 bits. A surprising amount of information is contained in the data that is thrown away. I ended up writing code to compute the residual error and use that for a new DNG file to look at it in LR. In FORTRAN. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 9, 2015 Share #226 Posted March 9, 2015 LFI, 2007, Feb or March if memory serves, contained an article on the subject. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyField Posted March 9, 2015 Share #227 Posted March 9, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I sometimes feel reluctant to discard any information contained in a file during processing, which leads me to sometimes process CMOS images or MM images too flat. I think there are a lot of people that have that same problem. I have to this point not seen a single photograph taken with the Pentax medium format camera (CMOS) that can hold a candle to any of the photographs taken with the old Phase One CCD backs. I am sure that this could be remedied in post-processing, but maybe users are simply guided in the wrong direction with these files. I cannot imagine why people who have the need for the image quality of the Pentax (or Leica, large Canon, Nikon, etc) would be guided down the wrong direction when looking at the Pentax out-of-camera files on the Pentax web site. The photographer should be clearly able to be processed to get good rich images. If they cannot "read" and understand what can be done with the images, I suspect they should be looking at one of the fine little advanced P&S cameras from Fuji, Nikon, Canon, etc and probably rely on out-of-camera jpg files which they certainly can crop to their delight. On the other hand, some people are jpg-only shooters but want a camera with perceived "quality" and love to shoot "the best". I can sympathize with this desire, however I do not really understand it. It sort of implies that those folks are (usually) snap-shooters with bragging rights. Yes, I do know a couple of very fine photographers who shoot JPG files only ... however they truly understand how to use their camera tools and light/composition -- but they still have to process the jpg images and can do that very well:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted March 9, 2015 Share #228 Posted March 9, 2015 I think you misunderstood me. I have not seen any great photographs taken with the Pentax so far. I am not interested in the camera, but what I saw on the luminous landscape for example did not impress me, and say what you want about that site, he certainly knows how to process. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 9, 2015 Share #229 Posted March 9, 2015 This was the premise of the experiment. It wasn't a contest between cameras. It was to test whether or not there is indeed a non-reproducible unique CCD look. Right. And the result is ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted March 9, 2015 Share #230 Posted March 9, 2015 The result is that there is no CCD look that can't be created with a CMOS camera. Most people just don't do it. As a big fan of the look of the M9 I will admit as much, and I expect people to respect that a lot of M9 users love the results they get from their M9 with minimal processing. I think this could be the conclusion of the argument and both camps can be content with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 9, 2015 Share #231 Posted March 9, 2015 Or how to simulate the M9 with a M240... or vice versa... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manoleica Posted March 9, 2015 Share #232 Posted March 9, 2015 ""On the other hand, some people are jpg-only shooters but want a camera with perceived "quality" and love to shoot "the best". I can sympathize with this desire, however I do not really understand it. It sort of implies that those folks are (usually) snap-shooters with bragging rights. Yes, I do know a couple of very fine photographers who shoot JPG files only ... however they truly understand how to use their camera tools and light/composition -- but they still have to process the jpg images and can do that very well"" Surely anyone who can afford a Leica is welcome to use the cameras. Whether in JPEG or Raw+ that's the users choice..your views are somewhat "Upstairs Downstairs" being a good or bad photographer is purely gauged on the said ability of those viewing. If I wish to drive my Corvette to the local store that is my choice, as with my cameras (Leicas & Nikons) if I choose to take "snapshots" that's my choice.. Masters of PP are to be admired, but not everyone prescribes to that activity.. There are millions of stored image files with an amazing amount of detail never ever to be seen, sad but true. Some PP files/images look more like paintings than photographs (just my view).. FWIW, let's all use our cameras as we wish, PP if we feel the need, but let's never denegrate anyone's photographic ability or choice of equipment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 9, 2015 Share #233 Posted March 9, 2015 The result is that there is no CCD look that can't be created with a CMOS camera. CCD and CMOS is not the only difference between the two cameras, therefore with this test we will be only able to understand whether the M9 look in daylight shots could be simulated with an M240 + some extra PP in a way that can fool most people when looking at web-size JPEGs after colorspace castration. In any case, the results of this test are unknown because the author hasn't yet revealed which of the images have been shot with the M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpdressed Posted March 9, 2015 Share #234 Posted March 9, 2015 This was the premise of the experiment. It wasn't a contest between cameras. It was to test whether or not there is indeed a non-reproducible unique CCD look. David, when can we expect an update? Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 9, 2015 Share #235 Posted March 9, 2015 Drugstore prints from a Hasselblad have a certain look to them. But I think I'd want to make the best custom prints before judging the camera. Likewise, you can't judge a camera's capabilities without expert level raw processing. Just as with b/w printing, processing skills are more important than the camera used IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenshacker Posted March 9, 2015 Share #236 Posted March 9, 2015 LFI, 2007, Feb or March if memory serves, contained an article on the subject. I found the information on this forum- several members wrote their own code to have a look at the DNG when the M8 and M9 first appeared. I found the DNG-8 decompression look up table at file offset '0664'x in the M8 file and wrote it to disk. It is exactly ((index**2)/ 4). I found a DNG-8 file from the M9, will verify it is the same. I have not used DNG-8 on the M9 except for one test. I do not like the algorithm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenshacker Posted March 9, 2015 Share #237 Posted March 9, 2015 http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/03/the-great-debate-ccd-vs-cmos-part-3/ Part 3 is up. One of my picks for group 1 was incorrect. The images were not registered, so content changed, and there was some "fudge factor" added in to the metric. But there was a trend for the M9 images to require more space to store the JPEG, which usually means more coefficients needed to represent the image. some M9 useres claim "More Pop" to the images. My personal opinion- IR bleed will blur the image and I would like to see this tested. Group 2- the image size was the only dead-giveaway as images from each camera were not posted. Doesn't mean anything, comparing the images from each camera was more interesting. I didn't need to guess, I would have cropped the M240 image to the same size as the M9. But as David stated, The test was not about determining if there were differences between the cameras, just to see if the two could be made to look the same with post-processing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 10, 2015 Share #238 Posted March 10, 2015 I think you misunderstood me. I have not seen any great photographs taken with the Pentax so far. [...] It would be interesting to know what cameras are associated with which brand names - and why. There is a back-story there. W. Eugene Smith used Minoltas at the end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted March 10, 2015 Share #239 Posted March 10, 2015 I think you misunderstood me. I have not seen any great photographs taken with the Pentax so far. I am not interested in the camera, but what I saw on the luminous landscape for example did not impress me, and say what you want about that site, he certainly knows how to process. Apropos the thread topic, here's what Michael R. said in his 645Z review on LuLa regarding the issue of CCD vs CMOS…. CMOS Vs. CCD One of the hoary old myths of the digital world is that CCD sensor technology has some inherent superiority over CMOS when it comes to image quality; colour purity in particular – whatever that is. Well, sorry to burst your balloon, but while this may have been true about ten years ago, it just isn’t the case today. There isn’t a CCD sensor on the market that has a wider dynamic range or lower noise than the one that’s in the Pentax 645z, and similarly in the Hasselblad and Phase One backs that use the same part. I have shot with all three, and have also owned and worked with virtually every Phase One back from the P25 through the IQ180, and I can tell you that the myth of CCD superiority is just that, a myth. Is there a difference between backs in terms of colour reproduction? Of course there is. But it is attributable to so many factors, including the A to D converters used, the sensor’s particular Bayer filter colour response, delinearization, the maker’s special sauce, and also the raw decoder’s characteristics and the profile used. Sorry you true believers. The CCD ship sailed a while ago, and while some may claim aspects of superiority it’s a bit like vinyl record fans bemoaning their fading technology. Yes, I know – some people think that they sound better than anything digital. But what was true of CDs originally (they were truely awful sounding at first) is not at all true for digital sound today. Similarly with CMOS. It’s simply time to move on and leave the myths behind. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 10, 2015 Share #240 Posted March 10, 2015 But there was a trend for the M9 images to require more space to store the JPEG, which usually means more coefficients needed to represent the image. some M9 useres claim "More Pop" to the images. My personal opinion- IR bleed will blur the image and I would like to see this tested. A bigger file size may also be caused by more noise (e.g. pushing shadows even at low ISO). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.