plasticman Posted September 22, 2009 Share #81 Posted September 22, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) If you promise not to share the link, I can pm you a url with files. Well as you can see from LCT's 3000+ posts on this forum he is a shady character who I would barely trust with that precious link... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 Hi plasticman, Take a look here Noise. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Olsen Posted September 22, 2009 Share #82 Posted September 22, 2009 Ulrik, I have a 1Ds III which I use regularly parallel to my M8. What I observe is that ISO640 equals ISO800 on the Canon. And so on. Did you make the same observation when comparing the D700 and the M9? What I expect of my future M9, - from all the tests I have seen on high ISO performance, is that the M9's 1250ISO will equal the 1Ds III's 1600ISO and produce 'slightly' more noise, but still usable Compared to my M8, I expect the M9 to be usable at one stop higher ISO setting; the 1250ISO, than my M8. I will be satisfied with this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinA Posted September 22, 2009 Share #83 Posted September 22, 2009 5 pages (I could only bother to read 2 of them, I've got some paint I need to watch dry) of heated discussion based on 2 shots of absolute nonsense. The 2 shots are incomparable, different subject, different light, different colour, different time etc. If this was the best either could do, then a point and shoot would make as much sense. Kevin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 22, 2009 Share #84 Posted September 22, 2009 The maximum file size of my mail is 20MB per file, the raw files are 35MB other suggestions? www.yousendit.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHAG Posted September 22, 2009 Share #85 Posted September 22, 2009 Well as you can see from LCT's 3000+ posts on this forum he is a shady character who I would barely trust with that precious link... Be warned : what you're about to do is extremely perilous. You don't know who's hiding behind these three fateful letters : l-c-t. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 22, 2009 Share #86 Posted September 22, 2009 Ok, I have sent him a PM, looking forward to his edits.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 22, 2009 Share #87 Posted September 22, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...The post processing was just the same, in lightroom. And i also posted a C1 version iirc. Which did not differ much. If you promise not to share the link, I can pm you a url with files. Your noisy pic was dated 2009:09:15 and has been developed in CS4 according to you. Now you refer to Lightroom and you've just sent me, w/o any comment, 24 (!) DNG files dated 4 days later. What am i supposed to do? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHAG Posted September 22, 2009 Share #88 Posted September 22, 2009 Your noisy pic was dated 2009:09:15 and has been developed in CS4 according to you. Now you refer to Lightroom and you've just sent me, w/o any comment, 24 (!) DNG files dated 4 days later. What am i supposed to do? I warned you, ulrikft. This lct gentleman is thorough. You won't get away with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted September 22, 2009 Share #89 Posted September 22, 2009 Leica may filter chroma noise even before the DNG is written. Luminance is more dificult, because it affects detail. Chroma noise is ugly. I am waiting to see how the S2 camera performs, regarding noise... The pixels are smaller, but the sensor is more advanced, and the processor is more sophisticated... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 22, 2009 Share #90 Posted September 22, 2009 Your noisy pic was dated 2009:09:15 and has been developed in CS4 according to you. Now you refer to Lightroom and you've just sent me, w/o any comment, 24 (!) DNG files dated 4 days later. What am i supposed to do? I'll try to answer in good faith, in spite of your obvious need to stir up trouble. 1) I said that I would give you the raw files from the last shoot, and you did get them, all of them. It is a simple matter of checking exif if you want one particular image. If you don't want to do that, stop asking for raw files. I have even given you different explanations for why the first file might have ended up as it did. 2) ACR... Lightroom and CS4 both use it. The first image used CS4, the last Lightroom, CS4 AND C1, without the result differing much. Please stop the passive agressive attitude, it is tiresome. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 22, 2009 Share #91 Posted September 22, 2009 I warned you, ulrikft. This lct gentleman is thorough. You won't get away with it. thorough? Or just plain bored and wanting trouble? I don't know. None of his points are very to the point so far, I have yet to find a rational reason for any of his inquieries so far. He asked for raw-files, I told him he could get those from the last shoot, he got the raw files from the last shoot. I have said what software was used where and why, and still.. he obfuscates and acts like a troublemaker. I have seen few signs of good faith in this forum so far. Social mechanics on the internet I guess... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted September 22, 2009 Share #92 Posted September 22, 2009 thorough? Or just plain bored and wanting trouble? I don't know. None of his points are very to the point so far, I have yet to find a rational reason for any of his inquieries so far. He asked for raw-files, I told him he could get those from the last shoot, he got the raw files from the last shoot. I have said what software was used where and why, and still.. he obfuscates and acts like a troublemaker. I have seen few signs of good faith in this forum so far. Social mechanics on the internet I guess... LCT acts like a "troublemaker"?? As you said to me on another forum (I'm still laughing) "troll begone!" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrice Posted September 22, 2009 Share #93 Posted September 22, 2009 LCT acts like a "troublemaker"?? As you said to me on another forum (I'm still laughing) "troll begone!" I read both fora and as an impartial witness you did act like a troll. He's contributing as fair and impartial an analysis as he can and you responded with sarcasm and thinly veiled hostility. Thank god you can "hide" particular users on both fora. Ulrik, don't bother sharing your findings here or anywhere else they get a negative response. And to the rest of you who beat the poor guy down for doing some testing for us and sharing his opinions you should block him, me and don't look in any threads either of us start and we'll all be the merrier for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted September 22, 2009 Share #94 Posted September 22, 2009 Leica may filter chroma noise even before the DNG is written. I don’t think so. How would you filter chroma noise before you even have a proper chroma channel? What’s in the data you get from the sensor is unqualified noise; it is only after the demosaicing step that chroma and luminance noise can be distinguished. If some sensor pixel is sensitive to red (or green, or blue), there is no telling whether some variation of its value due to noise will eventually show up as a variation of luminance, color, or both; it is the demosaicing algorithm determining that. Also, chroma noise filtering needs to take into acount neighboring pixels which is virtually impossible prior to demosaicing – you would need a full set of RGB data for each pixel. When noise filtering is applied to raw data, this is usually to get rid of fixed-pattern noise – especially with CMOS sensors that are more noisy to begin with, but also respond quite well to raw-level noise filtering as much of their noise is of the easy to remove fixed-pattern kind. This will reduce both chroma and luminance noise, and it won’t compromise sharpness. Of course, all the other kinds of noise (those not observing a fixed pattern) will still need to be taken care of. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHAG Posted September 22, 2009 Share #95 Posted September 22, 2009 I have seen few signs of good faith in this forum so far. Social mechanics on the internet I guess... My sentiment is quite the opposite. This forum is more or less a patch of humanity. Rather (much) more congenial than your ordinary patch of Internet humanity (at least on the International side ; the German side being more, well, german. This from an admirer of Thomas Mann, Günter Grass and Wim Wenders). You should try it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted September 22, 2009 Share #96 Posted September 22, 2009 I read both fora and as an impartial witness you did act like a troll. He's contributing as fair and impartial an analysis as he can and you responded with sarcasm and thinly veiled hostility. Thank god you can "hide" particular users on both fora. Ulrik, don't bother sharing your findings here or anywhere else they get a negative response. And to the rest of you who beat the poor guy down for doing some testing for us and sharing his opinions you should block him, me and don't look in any threads either of us start and we'll all be the merrier for it. I'm personally dubious about some of the statements and 'tests' that ulrikft has done, to be blunt. If I couldn't resist baiting him a little over on RFF, then that was more my fault than his. But he's been throwing his weight around rather tactlessly imho, and I'm more willing to trust LCT than the supposed author of these so-called 'tests'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 22, 2009 Share #97 Posted September 22, 2009 I'm personally dubious about some of the statements and 'tests' that ulrikft has done, to be blunt. If I couldn't resist baiting him a little over on RFF, then that was more my fault than his. But he's been throwing his weight around rather tactlessly imho, and I'm more willing to trust LCT than the supposed author of these so-called 'tests'. So, what abou the test or the methodology is "dubious"? "supposed author"..? You are pumping a lot of warm air, you are not actually contributing anything. What problems do you have with the facts/methods used? Can you be specific? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted September 22, 2009 Share #98 Posted September 22, 2009 So, what abou the test or the methodology is "dubious"? "supposed author"..? You are pumping a lot of warm air, you are not actually contributing anything. What problems do you have with the facts/methods used? Can you be specific? Look - you can get into yet another fight with yet another forum member if you like, but I don't see the point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 22, 2009 Share #99 Posted September 22, 2009 Look - you can get into yet another fight with yet another forum member if you like, but I don't see the point. You are the one trying to "fight" by implying quite rude things, and you seem unable to substantiate those claims. So, again: can you? substantiate those claims? I think I'll just have to block the troublemakers here.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted September 22, 2009 Share #100 Posted September 22, 2009 you seem unable to substantiate those claims Do yourself a favor and DO block me. To be frank, the launch of the new camera has brought quite a lot of extra 'noise' to the forum in the shape of people wanting to appear more important than they really are. I find your attitude tiresome; your posts often abrasive; you've made certain claims and then not backed them up (such as the files that LCT actually wanted to see). I can see that you're pretty good at turning stuff around to make it look like you're the reasonable one and that everyone around you is a troublemaker - believe me, I've seen the type before around the net, and you're a good example. I know that I can get pretty annoying myself - plenty of people here can attest to that - but at the very least I do own Leica equipment, which you appear not to, and I wonder to be honest why you suddenly became such a vocal and strident participant of the M9 forum when you've said yourself you can't afford to buy the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.