ptomsu Posted March 1, 2008 Share #81 Posted March 1, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) You know, actually I really don't care any longer if or if not DMR DNGs are supported by whatever SW. I have finished that period long time ago, luckily. Just another good justification that I sold this system. Sorry for you guys who are still stuck with it. But lets hope that Aperture will support DNGs from the R10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 1, 2008 Posted March 1, 2008 Hi ptomsu, Take a look here R10 and Full-Frame Sensor. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
stunsworth Posted March 1, 2008 Share #82 Posted March 1, 2008 You know, actually I really don't care any longer if or if not DMR DNGs are supported by whatever SW. ROFL I believe the technical term is "I was talking bollocks". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgcd Posted March 1, 2008 Share #83 Posted March 1, 2008 ROFL I believe the technical term is "I was talking bollocks". Indeed! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted March 1, 2008 Share #84 Posted March 1, 2008 Folks, I must say I am really confused now. 1) Took one of my DMR files. 2) Directly imported it in Aperture 2 with all latest updates om my MacBook Pro running MAC OS 10.5.2 3) It simply shows up as normal DNG (without any conversion tricks in DNG Converter! 4) File shows all Metadata right 5) File can be fully developed etc. So what am I wrong? Why do you say it does not work? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
masjah Posted March 1, 2008 Share #85 Posted March 1, 2008 Mark many thanks for the clarification - I see exactly what you are saying. (Engineers live on the real world; mathematicians, i.e. me. live on some utopean planet of unrealisable theoretical perfection!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 2, 2008 Share #86 Posted March 2, 2008 In digital audio, you actually add a small amount of noise with a particular probability density function which leads to rounding of the quantisation error and is subjectively is less harsh to listen to. Feel free to tell me I'm talking rubbish, but wasn't this something that was discovered early in the CD days? I have a (very) vague memory of an article in HI-Fi News by Laurie Fincham (sp) from KEF describing how a tympani at very low levels sounding like grains of rice being dropped on a drum skin, and how the addition of a little noise improved the sound. I still have the copy of Hi-Fi News somewhere, though it would take an age to find the issue. I have issue going back to the late 50s, but they not in chronological order. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted March 2, 2008 Share #87 Posted March 2, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) No, you're exactly right. Without this added noise called dither, a very soft sound such as a drum sounds like a series of clicks. Adding noise randomises the clicks and allows you to hear "into the noise" in the same way you can discern detail in an image through the grain. Fade an undithered signal to black, listen to it closely and it sounds harsh and gritty, add dither and you can hear a much lower signal than the theoretical quantising limit. There's much discussion as to how the noise should be shaped, last time I did it, I added noise of average level 1/2 LSB and a triangular probability density function, mainly because that's easy to generate in software. In the digital domain, the sole effect is to add or subtract a random 1 in the least significant bit of the sample. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted March 2, 2008 Share #88 Posted March 2, 2008 Folks, I must say I am really confused now. 1) Took one of my DMR files. 2) Directly imported it in Aperture 2 with all latest updates om my MacBook Pro running MAC OS 10.5.2 3) It simply shows up as normal DNG (without any conversion tricks in DNG Converter! 4) File shows all Metadata right 5) File can be fully developed etc. So what am I wrong? Why do you say it does not work? Peter, It blows highlights - if you have an image that doesn't have highlights in it, it will look ok, but as soon as you get close to a bright white, the highlight goes pink.... My brief experiments suggested that AP2 is less inclined to blow highlights than AP1 - it seems to happen at 15 bit levels, vs 14 bits for AP1, but the issue is still there. Also, note that the AP's thumbnail display now displays the embedded thumbnails, so you actually have to select the image in the main window to see Aperture's processing.... Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 2, 2008 Share #89 Posted March 2, 2008 Without this added noise called dither, a very soft sound such as a drum sounds like a series of clicks. Dither, that's the word I was looking for. While we've veered off topic can I ask another audio related question? Companies such as Linn now offer their albums as 96/24 downloads as well on SACD. Is there any advantage to the download compared to the disk? I have an external DA converter on my laptop that handles the format natively, but I was wondering if the downloaded file ought to sound better given that it has no need for the error correction that presumably the disc has. There was an early player from Cambridge - before they became the Richer Sounds house label - that had a front mounted LED that was illuminated whenever the player had to correct the data read from disk. I seem to remember it blinked quite a bit. I've downloaded a couple of the Linn 96/24 albums, and they sound mighty fine, but I'm concerned I'm going down a blind alley by buying downloads - obviously I'm talking about something higher in quality than MP3s here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted March 2, 2008 Share #90 Posted March 2, 2008 I got out of audio design before SACD came along mainly because I just could not hear the differences between things like interconnects and capacitors that the people (including Cambridge Audio) I worked for waxed lyrical about. That, and a string of unpaid invoices and cancelled projects. My entire CD collection - around 3000 discs - is ripped into Apple Lossless and I use fairly simple network music players to output to good quality DACs (Meridian) where great emphasis is placed on clock synthesis from the incoming data, but of course this is only 44.1/16. I'm working on the same presumption as you - clean data off a hard drive is better than dirty corrected data from a CD in real-time. I would have thought streaming clean 96/24 data into a good quality DAC will work fine; the key requirement of the DAC is to be able to synthesise an ultra-stable bit clock from the data stream to de-jitter the data. Just make sure you have a backup of that expensively downloaded data! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted March 2, 2008 Share #91 Posted March 2, 2008 Peter, It blows highlights - if you have an image that doesn't have highlights in it, it will look ok, but as soon as you get close to a bright white, the highlight goes pink.... My brief experiments suggested that AP2 is less inclined to blow highlights than AP1 - it seems to happen at 15 bit levels, vs 14 bits for AP1, but the issue is still there. Also, note that the AP's thumbnail display now displays the embedded thumbnails, so you actually have to select the image in the main window to see Aperture's processing.... Sandy Noticed all that - unfortunately. Not sure why they could not fix the highlight issues. But they re coming closer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted March 2, 2008 Share #92 Posted March 2, 2008 SACDs sound amazing. This is not a "hear the sound of this new anti-resonant gold wire" kind of difference; even my old ears immediately tell the difference: it's night and day. I had a dinner party once where I had various musicians from a local orchestra over. I had a 50 year old recording of Vivaldi in SACD playing in the background. All the musicians made their way to the stereo and asked why the music sounded so good. They had no idea it was a different source, just that it sounded, to them, musical. I haven't done any serious listening comparisons with DVD-audio level specs, but the sheer robustness and detail of SACD sources is astounding. It reminds me of listening to master tapes many, many years ago. I'm really sorry the format hasn't taken off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 2, 2008 Share #93 Posted March 2, 2008 SACDs sound amazing If you haven't done so already try the new Linn SACDs of the last 4 symphonies of Mozart recorded by Mackarras and the SCO. The recording is quite close, but the strings and percussion have real bite, similar to a period instrument recording. This recording will win a lot of awards at the end of the year. 2 discs for only £8.99 including P&P from HMV... HMV.com: classical: Mozart: Symphonies No38-41: Hybrid Cd/Sacd (2008) Sorry for getting either further off topic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted March 3, 2008 Share #94 Posted March 3, 2008 Thanks Steve! To put this back on topic, I sure would love an extra three or four stops worth of DR in the next generation digital imaging game... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EH21 Posted March 4, 2008 Share #95 Posted March 4, 2008 Thanks Steve! To put this back on topic, I sure would love an extra three or four stops worth of DR in the next generation digital imaging game... I'm with you Jamie, Extra DR is actually more important to me than pixel count. Eric Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
masjah Posted March 4, 2008 Share #96 Posted March 4, 2008 Thanks Steve! To put this back on topic, I sure would love an extra three or four stops worth of DR in the next generation digital imaging game... Fist of all, let me again state that I am an unreconstructed film only person with zero practical experience of digital! That being said, if the dynamic range of the sensor used in the DMR is 67dB, then I think this corresponds to about 11 f-stops, which I gather really is pretty good as these things go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EH21 Posted March 5, 2008 Share #97 Posted March 5, 2008 Yes the DR of the sensor is 67 dB which is in the territory of MF digital backs - 72dB +- a few dB. Last year, I did some tests using a transmissive step wedge and Imatest software to compare the DMR to the Canon 1DIII and the DMR came out with about 1.5 stops more usable DR than the canon. Now having shot the DMR in studio with the same lighting side by side with my Phase P20 digital back, I'm guessing that the DMR has about 1.5 stops less usable DR than the P20 which is more or less what the sensor specs tell us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.