For Rich and his fans.

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Henry, Feb 1, 2010.

  1. Henry

    NameHere Guest

    Not true at all.

    What you perceive as the RAW containing more dynamic range is just your
    camera's failure to do a proper RAW to JPG conversion internally. It has
    nothing to do with the sensor, it has to do with how the data from the
    sensor is converted into useful files. If a value of 0 from a sensor's
    photosite is converted to 0 in the JPG file, and a value of 1024, 4096, or
    16384 (10 to 14 bit dependent) from a photosite is converted to a value of
    255 in the JPG file, then the JPG file represents the whole dynamic range.
    No more than that is required for printing and display purposes.

    Learn to buy cameras where the RAW to JPG conversion is done properly in
    the camera and you'll discover why people are tearing their hair out over
    RAW and religiously claiming the useless virtues of RAW data. RAW files
    aren't required nor needed from cameras that are programmed properly in the
    first place. The only time RAW is needed is due to poorly programmed
    cameras and piss-poor snapshooters that don't know how to properly expose
    their images nor use their cameras properly.
     
    NameHere, Feb 3, 2010
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Henry

    Ofnuts Guest

    You naughty boy, you just blew again my just repaired ironymeter.
     
    Ofnuts, Feb 3, 2010
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. [/QUOTE]
    Your photographs show clearly how much you know about dynamic range :)
     
    Chris Malcolm, Feb 4, 2010
    #23
  4. Henry

    Paul Furman Guest

    Remote flashes can be triggered by flash, right? No TTL metering though.

    Similar, with much more zoom & less high ISO performance.
    ISO 800 1/4000 sec f/8.0 28mm eq.
    Interesting perspective, I like that you did it with no flash.

    I met a guy doing travel photography, trying to make a living at it &
    managing OK from what I could tell. He used a P&S because he liked to
    travel obscure places in India & be unobtrusive. He had lots of nice
    work. Anything is possible. There are billions of stunning photos out
    there that a cell phone could capture.
     
    Paul Furman, Feb 4, 2010
    #24
  5. Henry

    NameHere Guest

    Your comments clearly show how little you understand the full spectrum of
    conversions from analog sensor data to useful image. Theorize all you want,
    your image never needs to have any color bit-depth-path greater than your
    weakest link. At most, only double the color-bit-depth of your printer or
    display. That makes only 10-bit sensor-data more than necessary. If
    properly converted to a final JPG file in-camera, then that's all the
    bit-depth that's required from any camera for anyone.

    Show me, or anyone, why a camera should be less capable of doing the proper
    RAW to JPG conversion than what anyone can do with the same data outside of
    the camera for the same final printing or display purposes. Nothing that
    any of you have stated has made any sense whatsoever. It's okay if you use
    external software on the RAW to JPG conversion to obtain the full dynamic
    range from the sensor, but your camera shouldn't be capable of that? You're
    a fool if you believe that. All you are doing is trying to justify why your
    cameras are so bad, why your talents as photographers are so bad, or why
    you are more enthralled with playing with theoretical bits or playing
    gear-head and tech-head than you are at being any kind of photographers.

    Go ahead, dig yourself a deeper hole by showing how little you know about
    the real world and real photography. It must be awfully cramped while
    mentally-masturbating in that little theoretical space between your ears.
    So far, all you've proved is what an inexperienced moron and troll that you
    truly are.
     
    NameHere, Feb 4, 2010
    #25
  6. Henry

    NameHere Guest

    And it won't do a lick of good if you can only present it in 6-bits worth
    of resolution on your monitor or even less bit-depth on paper. Catching on
    yet?

    Bit-depth color resolution in sensors is a marketing ploy just as empty and
    useless as the megapixel race. Unfortunately, all the "intelligent" DSLR
    idiots think they are getting something more useful if they have a 14-bit
    sensor. It's fun watching them get conned by their own snow-jobs. The ONLY
    people who find it the least bit useful are those who are so inept at
    photography that they require that vast amount of wiggle-room to try to
    recover from their senseless snapshot disasters and poorly designed
    cameras.
     
    NameHere, Feb 4, 2010
    #26
  7. Henry

    NameHere Guest

    Do tell. Why is it not physically possible? This I've GOT to hear.

    Just because your mind is still stuck in last century's archaic focal-plane
    shutter mentality doesn't mean that the rest of the world in this century
    is still so crippled as that.

    Have you done the tests with CHDK capable cameras? If not then you're just
    another ignorant idiot troll. Not only is it possible it's done every day
    by those who use CHDK supported cameras. A shame that you're so far out of
    the loop of what is really going on for over 3 years now that you think
    something this simple is impossible. Some owners of certain models of CHDK
    capable cameras have even reported full-frame flash-sync as fast as
    1/224,000th of a second exposures when tested properly. Lie to yourself and
    all others as much you want. It's not going to change facts and reality.

    Go crawl back under your bridge-of-ignorance-and-inexperience, troll.
     
    NameHere, Feb 4, 2010
    #27
  8. Henry

    NameHere Guest

    You're right, I don't see the proper image on the LCD or EVF *after* I have
    taken the shot. I see the correct color balance and exposure on the LCD or
    EVF *before* I take the shot. You've not used many, or any, decent cameras
    have you. You've made that perfectly clear.
     
    NameHere, Feb 4, 2010
    #28
  9. Henry

    NameHere Guest

    6-bits per each channel of CMYK. That's a 24-bit color depth resolution.
    16,777,216 colors.

    There's a good reason that people resort to Piezography for B&W prints.
    Using various shades of gray inks to achieve more than 64 gray levels
    without dithering. (6-bits is 64, not 32)
    All fine and dandy. Now tell me how many distinct hues your human eye can
    discern faithfully.
    This is why I said that 10-bit depth per sensor channel is more than is
    needed for the final display. 12 and 14 bit camera sensors are nothing but
    a marketing ploy that is directly targeted to major fools. Rarely do I need
    to do much post-processing to images from my P&S cameras because I know how
    to use them properly in the first place. They also do a fine job of
    retaining the full dynamic range of the sensor in the JPG file to begin
    with. I've compared the JPG and eventual RAW manipulated data. There's so
    little difference between the two that it's difficult to best the JPG file
    by starting with RAW. You can spend upwards of half an hour or more trying
    to tweak anything extra out of the RAW sensor data. It's mostly a huge
    waste of time because the camera's programming does it so well in the RAW
    to JPG conversion to begin with. Those who have less capable cameras will
    have to resort to post-processing the RAW data to fix what their camera
    failed to deliver in the first place. Or, more commonly, what they as
    snapshooters failed to do in the first place.

    How difficult is this for you to comprehend? It seems to be frying your
    brain so far.
     
    NameHere, Feb 4, 2010
    #29
  10. Henry

    NameHere Guest

    6-bits per each channel of CMYK. That's a 24-bit color depth resolution.
    16,777,216 colors.

    There's a good reason that people resort to Piezography for B&W prints.
    Using various shades of gray inks to achieve more than 64 gray levels
    without unsightly dithering. (6-bits is 64, not 32)
    All fine and dandy. Now tell me how many distinct hues your human eye can
    discern faithfully.
    This is why I said that 10-bit depth per sensor channel is more than is
    needed for the final display. 12 and 14 bit camera sensors are nothing but
    a marketing ploy that is directly targeted to major fools. Rarely do I need
    to do much post-processing to images from my P&S cameras because I know how
    to use them properly in the first place. They also do a fine job of
    retaining the full dynamic range of the sensor in the JPG file to begin
    with. I've compared the JPG and eventual RAW manipulated data. There's so
    little difference between the two that it's difficult to best the JPG file
    by starting with RAW. You can spend upwards of half an hour or more trying
    to tweak anything extra out of the RAW sensor data. It's mostly a huge
    waste of time because the camera's programming does it so well in the RAW
    to JPG conversion to begin with. Those who have less capable cameras will
    have to resort to post-processing the RAW data to fix what their camera
    failed to deliver in the first place. Or, more commonly, what they as
    snapshooters failed to do in the first place.

    How difficult is this for you to comprehend? It seems to be frying your
    brain so far.
     
    NameHere, Feb 4, 2010
    #30
  11. Henry

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Do you believe that your printer can do more than 64 levels?
    Video cards are not monitors.
    During processing it's useful. Afterward? Not so much.
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 4, 2010
    #31
  12. Henry

    Ray Fischer Guest

    So what?
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 4, 2010
    #32
  13. Henry

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Just because YOU are a lying troll doesn't mean that everybody else
    is stupid.
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 4, 2010
    #33
  14. Henry

    Paul Furman Guest

    I can't see someone routinely adjusting white balance, contrast &
    saturation for each shot. I do that for focus stacking somewhat because
    I don't want the huge raw files but for general photography there's no
    way to really get a good look at things still you get home.

    Of course it's possible to take nice photos with a canned jpeg output
    from the camera but more flexibility is more flexibility.

    I agree 14 bit is overkill. I played with it and could see no value.
     
    Paul Furman, Feb 4, 2010
    #34
  15. Henry

    LOL! Guest

    Ask any DSLR owner who worships RAW and you'll find out that it is very
    much some kind of major achievement. Apparently none of their cameras are
    capable of something so simple. They're always clamouring how they get two
    or more stops of dynamic range out of the RAW data compared to the JPG file
    their camera can produce. Go ahead, ask them. They're even stupidly willing
    to spend an extra $100-$200 for the required software needed to repair what
    their camera's firmware failed to do correctly in the first place. Then on
    top of that they waste even more valuable hours of their life trying to
    correct all the errors from their camera's firmware on every snapshot they
    take.

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Feb 4, 2010
    #35
  16. Henry

    NameHere Guest

    You can think anything you want, I could care less.

    I can also use a dichroic enlarger and tune in a nearly exact 6500K color
    temperature without looking at the settings nor having any external
    references. Just a fun test for myself that I tried when curious about it
    one day. One time I was offended by my phase-contrast microscope's incident
    light-source being slightly too warm. So I found some finely graded colored
    filtering materials (RoscoLux 144+ filter sampler pack) that I had laying
    in a box and managed to fine-tune its lab-designed daylight-filter to
    something more plausible by having to stack two different color-correction
    filters in the light path. No color analysis tools required. I also wonder
    why people are so needful of tools like the Spyder to adjust their color
    workspace.

    I pride myself on my color-memory but a friend's mother has me beat. She
    can look at a swatch of cloth under nearly any lighting source (in fact she
    never even considers this), go into a dressmaker's store a week later, and
    come back with the exact same color even in another material and texture.
    Something that even I think should be impossible. Some people are just
    better at these sorts of things than others. Apparently you're not one of
    them.

    Though I do admit, this is why I prefer an EVF to an LCD for proper
    white-balance and exposure whenever possible. It blocks out all external
    influences and makes things far easier. Once you have trained your eye,
    with enough use, to see how any particular camera's EVF is portraying the
    resulting photo you can be well within 1/6th EV of exact exposure required
    at all times without ever using any light-metering cues while in full
    manual mode. Particularly helpful when having to pick the exact exposures
    needed to retain the most colors in difficult to meter sunsets and
    sunrises. Try it sometime. Turn off all automatic metering and use an EVF
    display alone to choose your white-balance and exposure settings. You might
    be surprised how well this works. This, of course, depends so much on your
    own skills with any camera. It will also help to tune your camera's custom
    settings to lowest contrast; and if it allows for RBG adjustments too, to
    fine tune those so that the colors in your EVF exactly match, as near as
    possible, the real scene. Not everything that you need to know how to do is
    contained in that camera's manual--authored by tech-heads that have never
    used these cameras in real-world situations.
     
    NameHere, Feb 4, 2010
    #36
  17. Henry

    NameHere Guest

    There's your problem right there. You never read the CHDK manual. The
    shutter speed is tied to aperture, because the aperture blades do
    double-duty as the shutter in these cameras. Just as the smallest apertures
    built-into Canon's own firmware only allow faster shutter speeds on their
    own menus. Now you know why this is so.

    Just another case of ignorant user error.



    Now you can RTFM sometime.

    This has already been done, years ago. The testing was done with a fast
    scanning laser. The only reliable method that isn't skewed by a cold or
    warm sensor that is shifting the ISO sensitivity during use, nor any
    mains-powered light-source that flickers in brightness from AC cycles.
    Using a histogram to determine true shutter speeds is useless at these fast
    rates. A different more reliable method had to be found.

    <http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_&_Flash-Sync#Shutter_Speed_Test_by_Laser>

    You may find other models and their tested top shutter speeds on this page
    <http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures>

    Your SX100 has already been tested to 1/40,000 second at f/8.0-11.

    You can also search all of Flickr for all the example photos that others
    have done of all myriad of subjects using CHDK or using these fast shutter
    speeds. Never having them available before people were deaf, dumb, and
    blind to all their possible uses. They are no longer blinded and crippled
    by focal-plane shutter limitations. They're starting to realize all the
    photography subjects with which they are useful.

    Here's a fun link to browse some of the more popular CHDK P&S-camera photo
    examples <http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk> The lightning and bird
    shots are particularly interesting, taken with the 45ms-fast
    motion-detection capability of CHDK.
     
    NameHere, Feb 4, 2010
    #37
  18. Henry

    NameHere Guest

    Useless and too dark for you. You're not creative enough nor intelligent
    enough to know when and why it is extremely useful.
    I never said "most". You're the only one who keeps claiming that.

    Though 50+ makes and models of cameras, with more being added monthly, is
    hardly a few.

    Why is it that you have such a problem with this? Because you can't even
    learn how to use the one you have?
    Yes. I do. Many of them. How much money do you have in order to see them?
     
    NameHere, Feb 4, 2010
    #38
  19. Henry

    NameHere Guest

    P&S can attain 10 fps too. That's not the issue here. How many photos are
    you going to waste at 10 fps waiting for a decent lightning strike when a
    P&S camera can do it without error on the first shot every time. Lightning
    strike shots can even be taken in daylight hand-held with a CHDK camera.
    Something that is impossible for you to accomplish with any DSLR.
    Oh wait, let me browse the net and find a post where someone is giving up
    on the frailties, dust problems, cost, lost shots from changing lenses, and
    weight of their DSLRs, on ad-infinauseum ... Damn, there's so many I can't
    decide which of the hundreds of thousands are worth posting here.

    You're a troll and a fool. One who has now proved in the worldwide arena
    that you can't even use a simple P&S camera properly.

    Thanks for playing.
     
    NameHere, Feb 5, 2010
    #39
  20. Henry

    Ray Fischer Guest

    .... that you're a lying troll.
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 5, 2010
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.