«

Siggy wrote:

> I am not entirely sure I know what you mean by Dynamic Range. Are you
> referring to the ability to distinguish between very close shades of the
> same colour throughout the 0-255 RGB range, or the ability to pick out

The extra sensors in the S-3 go to recording highlights. The extends
the common 12 bit range (per color) to 14. (This is prior to
compressing into 0-255/color in JPG).


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Alan Browne wrote:

>
> C d'I are like their english counterparts. They take in a lot of
> advertising. OTOH they have made signficant captital investments in
> test equipment, technique and reporting format. It is not a 12 page
> ad. While quick to sing the laurels of a camera or lens, they are
> also quick to enumerate warts.

Thanks. :-)

(E-Mail Removed)lid wrote:
>
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Siggy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > What I want, even at the sake of overkill in terms of camera's
> > ability, is the ability to locate and correctly register as many
> > (ideally all) pigment based colours identifiable by the human
> > eye.
>
> You can't get this with any conventional digital camera, because
> digital cameras are not colorimetrically accurate

some one begs to differ...
check the phase one p25, and read luminous landscape's review...



> (and aren't intended
> to be). There's an article at
> http://www.cis.rit.edu/mcsl/research...ech_lowres.pdf
> which explains why this is, and gives some suggestions about how to
> overcome te problems.
>
> [There's also
> http://www.rmimaging.com/information...tography.pdf.]
>
> Andrew.

"Siggy" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> McLeod <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 08:53:05 -0500, Alan Browne
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Negatives
>>>>
>>>> -body sucks
>>>> -slow recording (once 2 or 3 images are in the buffer, it goes
>>>> dead slow)
>>>> -0.5 stop EV exposure steps.
>>>> -batteries: don't last long (AA).
>>>
>>> Having owned one for a couple of months now the only thing I disagree
>>> with them about is the NiMh AA batteries. I can shoot an all day
>>> wedding without having to change them (as long as I remembered to
>>> charge them the day before) and pick up another set at any large
>>> store for $19.95. In fact, since buying the camera, NiMh battery
>>> storage has increased to 2500 mah. Since I also used these in my
>>> flash and my CF to CD portable burner this is a really big plus in
>>> my book.
>>
>> I'm a big fan of cameras using generic batteries; it was a factor in
>> my choosing the S2 over the Nikon D100 a few years back. I'm glad to
>> see the S3 still works on AAs; even if I'm not able to consider
>> upgrading.
>
> But, what about dpreview.com's assertion that this camera is about
> $1000 too much, compared with modern 6mp rivals?

If I were able to financially consider upgrading from my S2, I would
not automatically choose the S3. Since I'm *not* able, I'm not
studying the field too carefully; it would only frustrate me. (I'm
also not yet dissatisfied with my S2, except for TTL flash.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-(E-Mail Removed)>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Crownfield <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed)lid wrote:
>>
>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Siggy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> > What I want, even at the sake of overkill in terms of camera's
>> > ability, is the ability to locate and correctly register as many
>> > (ideally all) pigment based colours identifiable by the human
>> > eye.
>>
>> You can't get this with any conventional digital camera, because
>> digital cameras are not colorimetrically accurate

> some one begs to differ...
> check the phase one p25, and read luminous landscape's review...

I don't think it differs at all. Reichmann says "The P25 is the first
digital device that I have ever seen that can (to my eyes at least)
reproduce a perfect colour chart, I have not had time to do a
technical analysis (I'm sure it isn't really perfect), but as far as I
can see this back produces the most accurate colour that I've ever
seen." This is a long way from claiming colorimetric accuracy, which
is what the poster was asking for.

See the cited article at
http://www.cis.rit.edu/mcsl/research...ech_lowres.pdf
which explains the problem in detail.

Andrew.

(E-Mail Removed)lid wrote:
>
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Crownfield <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > (E-Mail Removed)lid wrote:
> >>
> >> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Siggy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> > What I want, even at the sake of overkill in terms of camera's
> >> > ability, is the ability to locate and correctly register as many
> >> > (ideally all) pigment based colours identifiable by the human
> >> > eye.
> >>
> >> You can't get this with any conventional digital camera, because
> >> digital cameras are not colorimetrically accurate
>
> > some one begs to differ...
> > check the phase one p25, and read luminous landscape's review...
>
> I don't think it differs at all. Reichmann says "The P25 is the first
> digital device that I have ever seen that can (to my eyes at least)
> reproduce a perfect colour chart, I have not had time to do a
> technical analysis (I'm sure it isn't really perfect), but as far as I
> can see this back produces the most accurate colour that I've ever
> seen." This is a long way from claiming colorimetric accuracy, which
> is what the poster was asking for.
>
> See the cited article at
> http://www.cis.rit.edu/mcsl/research...ech_lowres.pdf
> which explains the problem in detail.

very interesting article.
several levels of problems.

first is does the painting look
the way you want to photograph it?
second is does the imaging system record
what you see now?

obviously the camera can not record
what was, but now is not.

>
> Andrew.

(E-Mail Removed)lid wrote:
>
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Crownfield <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > (E-Mail Removed)lid wrote:
> >>
> >> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Siggy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> > What I want, even at the sake of overkill in terms of camera's
> >> > ability, is the ability to locate and correctly register as many
> >> > (ideally all) pigment based colours identifiable by the human
> >> > eye.
> >>
> >> You can't get this with any conventional digital camera, because
> >> digital cameras are not colorimetrically accurate
>
> > some one begs to differ...
> > check the phase one p25, and read luminous landscape's review...
>
> I don't think it differs at all. Reichmann says "The P25 is the first
> digital device that I have ever seen that can (to my eyes at least)
> reproduce a perfect colour chart, I have not had time to do a
> technical analysis (I'm sure it isn't really perfect), but as far as I
> can see this back produces the most accurate colour that I've ever
> seen." This is a long way from claiming colorimetric accuracy, which
> is what the poster was asking for.

on the otherhand,
when someone who knows enough to review there
says "The P25 is the first digital device that I have ever seen
that can (to my eyes at least) reproduce a perfect colour chart.",

I suspect that it is rather good at reproducing color accurately.

>
> See the cited article at
> http://www.cis.rit.edu/mcsl/research...ech_lowres.pdf
> which explains the problem in detail.
>
> Andrew.

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Crownfield <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed)lid wrote:
>>
>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Crownfield <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> > (E-Mail Removed)lid wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Siggy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >> > What I want, even at the sake of overkill in terms of camera's
>> >> > ability, is the ability to locate and correctly register as many
>> >> > (ideally all) pigment based colours identifiable by the human
>> >> > eye.
>> >>
>> >> You can't get this with any conventional digital camera, because
>> >> digital cameras are not colorimetrically accurate
>>
>> > some one begs to differ...
>> > check the phase one p25, and read luminous landscape's review...
>>
>> I don't think it differs at all. Reichmann says "The P25 is the first
>> digital device that I have ever seen that can (to my eyes at least)
>> reproduce a perfect colour chart, I have not had time to do a
>> technical analysis (I'm sure it isn't really perfect), but as far as I
>> can see this back produces the most accurate colour that I've ever
>> seen." This is a long way from claiming colorimetric accuracy, which
>> is what the poster was asking for.

> on the otherhand,
> when someone who knows enough to review there
> says "The P25 is the first digital device that I have ever seen
> that can (to my eyes at least) reproduce a perfect colour chart.",

> I suspect that it is rather good at reproducing color accurately.

Yes, but you have to know about the Color Checker to make sense of
this. It's made from pigments with good metameric properties,
i.e. pigments that have the property of not changing relative colour
when the light source (or the observer) changes. This is good for
colour calibration, but really bad for evaluating the colorimetric
accuracy of a system.

The problems identified with photographing artwork have to do with
pigments that have bad (in some cases really bad) metameric
properties. The original poster was asking about how to "correctly
register as many (ideally all) pigment based colours" and to do that
you have to have a colorimetrically accurate camera.

Andrew.

(E-Mail Removed)lid wrote:

>
> You can't get this with any conventional digital camera, because
> digital cameras are not colorimetrically accurate (and aren't intended
> to be). There's an article at
> http://www.cis.rit.edu/mcsl/research...ech_lowres.pdf
> which explains why this is, and gives some suggestions about how to
> overcome te problems.
>
> [There's also
> http://www.rmimaging.com/information...tography.pdf.]
>
> Andrew.

Andrew, firstly my apologies for belatedly acknowledging your reply.
I am grateful to you for the 'Van Gogh' link, but I have been aware of Robin
Myer's piece for some time now. I have already had a similar discussion with
our moderator, Alan, in which I pointed out this particular paper. It is
clearly a much more complex issue than I once imagined, and I can now
declare myself to be 'consciously incompetent'. :-) As I am not a
museum-grade archivist, I need not trouble myself too much with the science
(although I am interested in it). However, the issue of reproducing cobalt
blue's (a pigment oft used by the artists whose work I photograph) fairly
accurately is of some importance, as this readily shows up as 'wrong' if not
carefully managed. But as this seems more an issue of light sources than
camera, I can worry less about which dSLR's I need to consider.

I am beginning to look at spending more than I first thought. There do seem
to be some enticing prices on eBay for second user Kodak DCS Pro slr/n's!

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Siggy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed)lid wrote:

>> You can't get this with any conventional digital camera, because
>> digital cameras are not colorimetrically accurate (and aren't intended
>> to be). There's an article at
>> http://www.cis.rit.edu/mcsl/research...ech_lowres.pdf
>> which explains why this is, and gives some suggestions about how to
>> overcome te problems.
>>
>> [There's also
>> http://www.rmimaging.com/information...tography.pdf.]

> Andrew, firstly my apologies for belatedly acknowledging your reply.

My pleasure.

> I am grateful to you for the 'Van Gogh' link, but I have been aware
> of Robin Myer's piece for some time now. I have already had a
> similar discussion with our moderator, Alan, in which I pointed out
> this particular paper. It is clearly a much more complex issue than
> I once imagined, and I can now declare myself to be 'consciously
> incompetent'. :-) As I am not a museum-grade archivist, I need not
> trouble myself too much with the science (although I am interested
> in it). However, the issue of reproducing cobalt blue's (a pigment
> oft used by the artists whose work I photograph) fairly accurately
> is of some importance, as this readily shows up as 'wrong' if not
> carefully managed. But as this seems more an issue of light sources
> than camera, I can worry less about which dSLR's I need to consider.

AFAIK the only way you can get away from the cobalt blue problem by
changing light source is to find one totally deficient in far red, to
which I can only say "good luck!" But DSLRs are pretty much of a
muchness in this regard; as far as I'm aware they all have similar
problems with far red. It's important to point out, though, that even
with these known problems, things are much easier with digital than
with film, because digital is inherently more repeatable.

> I am beginning to look at spending more than I first thought.

Funny the way that happens...

Andrew.