Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              15      
16
       17       end
  

Archive 2013 · Dynamic Range
  
 
Access
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #1 · p.16 #1 · Dynamic Range


artd wrote:
A different raw converter is not really going to gain a lot. The issue is rooted in the hardware. The main improvement that Sony came up with in the Exmor sensor is in the analag-to-digital converter which mitigates fixed pattern noise. The technology is patented, and so that is why we still have FPN in Canon sensors.

It does, the tool (and how you use it) makes a substantial difference. Because some are better at dealing with that type of noise than others. The same is true of technique. People can reason away a lot, as in "this can't be" or "it doesn't matter much". In reality, it can; if you take advantage of it, it does. What really matters isn't the argument (or how well you can argue it), but that you can produce that photo when the time comes.

I also don't know that patents or IP law affects much in reality, it rarely actually decides much in the large scheme of things. While this type of litigation is very expensive, the courts are generally impotent or too slow and act too late to make a substantial difference. We are now dealing with a worldwide marketplace and worldwide product. Apple <-> Samsung is a textbook example of this. In the big picture, all that litigation didn't really change much at all. The reality is like it almost always is, with cars, smartphones, whatever -- a lot of companies own a lot of the different IP that goes into or around the sensor, and an equilibrium of cross-licensing, mutually established interest ("I won't sue you if you don't sue me") ends up being the way that most companies play that game. Everyone once in a while, someone breaks from this mold, Apple, Rambus, whoever. But the court case doesn't change much in the big picture, in the end they pretty much back where they started, except for having enriched some law firms and lawyers. That's why I don't buy the 'this is patented' argument at all.

As long as Canon is pursuing or addressing the problem, it can be fixed, in time. The only way it won't be fixed is if they simply don't care, or they care, but are incompetent.

Also, even if you play by the rules one hundred percent, IP can often be a detriment to development because it pigeonholes you into one way of thought or one way of dealing with the problem.



Mar 04, 2013 at 07:24 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.16 #2 · p.16 #2 · Dynamic Range


Access wrote:
It does, the tool (and how you use it) makes a substantial difference.


To the former (which tool for raw conversion), not especially. Standard tools today all can do this quite well.

To the latter (how you use it), absolutely.



Mar 04, 2013 at 07:58 PM
artd
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #3 · p.16 #3 · Dynamic Range


Access wrote:
It does, the tool (and how you use it) makes a substantial difference.

I would disagree that a different raw converter will make a "substantial" difference. The issue of fixed pattern noise is simply not one of software conversion. (That's not to say there are not methods of dealing with FPN in software, but those are just about fancier methods of noise reduction.) The FPN issue is inherent in the design of typical digital sensors. It's a matter of physics. No raw converter can change that. Sony came up with a clever architecture (column parallel ADC) to get around the issue. Canon may well address it in a future sensor design, but they will have to come up with a different clever way of doing it.






Mar 04, 2013 at 09:29 PM
Access
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #4 · p.16 #4 · Dynamic Range


artd, what you said between the parenthesis is exactly what I'm talking about.
The origin of the problem isn't software, but that doesn't mean the fix can't be. This is honestly what a lot of software development time is spent on (overcoming some hardware problem, bug, inefficiency, etc. of an existing system). In many industries, everyone's hardware is flawed in a number of ways, some similar, some different; and whoever covers it up best with software ends up with the best product.

I haven't had much luck with third party plugins that come after the raw converter, it seems like the raw converter is the natural place for noise reduction to begin with. The real challenge is how to maintain the relevant detail and not do more damage to the image than it helps, by knowing when noise matters, when it doesn't (in terms of the final image), how it is going to be viewed (small print, large print, computer screen, etc.) and some of the basic techniques to conceal or hide noise.



Mar 04, 2013 at 10:32 PM
Hulot
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #5 · p.16 #5 · Dynamic Range


what RAW converter are we talking about?


Mar 04, 2013 at 11:04 PM
mttran
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #6 · p.16 #6 · Dynamic Range


Whoelse understands canon data structure better than DPP itself. Other converter is nothing more than masking the integrity of canon imperfection data. Imo, product improvement should be at CAM hardware & firmware i/o level (not at the user level or third party converter level). Everythingelse in this discussion is just another excused or blaming games. Just ask yourself question, why user has to deal with this i/o mess...it's not news and this mess has been around almost a decade long already.

Edited on Mar 04, 2013 at 11:53 PM · View previous versions



Mar 04, 2013 at 11:16 PM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #7 · p.16 #7 · Dynamic Range


The hardware and software have a long way to go, it seems, before they can tackle the incredibly subtle low tonalities of shadows.

It's almost as if IQ from, say the 5D3, is a bell curve - the ability to deal with highlights is low, performance peaks in the midtones, and IQ in the shadows drops off markedly - rather than a more-or-less straight line.



Mar 04, 2013 at 11:25 PM
Access
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #8 · p.16 #8 · Dynamic Range


mttran wrote:
Just ask yourself question, why user has to deal with this i/o mess...it's not news and this mess has been around almost a decade long already.

Who said it was fair, in the end, it's just, "do what you got to do".



Mar 05, 2013 at 12:23 AM
artd
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #9 · p.16 #9 · Dynamic Range


Access wrote:
artd, what you said between the parenthesis is exactly what I'm talking about.
The origin of the problem isn't software, but that doesn't mean the fix can't be. This is honestly what a lot of software development time is spent on (overcoming some hardware problem, bug, inefficiency, etc. of an existing system). In many industries, everyone's hardware is flawed in a number of ways, some similar, some different; and whoever covers it up best with software ends up with the best product.

In this instance the software can help mask the hardware problem, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it can "fix" the problem. Because the "fix" just swaps one problem for another, namely putting smudged details in place of noise. It may be a matter of semantics, but I wouldn't really call that a fix. More like a balancing act between two evils.


I haven't had much luck with third party plugins that come after the raw converter, it seems like the raw converter is the natural place for noise reduction to begin with. The real challenge is how to maintain the relevant detail and not do more damage to the image than it helps, by knowing when noise matters, when it doesn't (in terms of the final image), how it is going to be viewed (small print, large print, computer screen, etc.) and some of the basic techniques to conceal or hide noise.

I agree these are all factors to weigh. Though I find the raw converter not an optimal place to do so. If noise reduction is necessary there's more flexilbility in the image processing stage where it's possible to blend multiple layers so you can mask where and to what level the noise reduction takes place.



Mar 05, 2013 at 12:24 AM
Access
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #10 · p.16 #10 · Dynamic Range


Yeah, I meant 'fix' more in the figurative term.

The thing about the raw converter is that is the one tool that has access to the original data. So the most pure forms of noise reduction can be applied there. Otherwise you apply noise reduction to a rendering or mapping of the raw. It requires a lot more manual tuning... but I mean, whatever works. From the early days of "noise ninja" back when I first got my rebel, to the more modern products, I honestly never had much luck with those types of tools. Sometimes they claim to do amazing things, but when you get down to actually using it to do something useful, no.

If I need to break it into layers, I will develop the raw multiple times, once for the shadows, once for the rest of the image, and then work from there.



Mar 05, 2013 at 12:49 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



mttran
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #11 · p.16 #11 · Dynamic Range


Access wrote:
Who said it was fair, in the end, it's just, "do what you got to do".


Sure is not fair to most consumer. How many copies that consumer has to update in last decade in order to get tiny better in shadows IQ ...hence the DR. You can see it is not about canon vs sony vs nikon vs etc...DR thread. It is about canon milking process that some people is getting tired of.... and.....why thread like this one with differences argument keeps poping up once in awhile.



Mar 05, 2013 at 02:12 AM
pipspeak
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #12 · p.16 #12 · Dynamic Range


I have not read all 16 pages of this thread, but I guess I'll throw in my two cents on DR... yes we'd all like some more, but in my case I still have a lot of DR headroom to explore by both improving my photo-taking skills and post-processing skills.

Would I like to be able to push extreme shadows by 3+ stops and reach noise-free nirvana? Sure, but until then I have plenty of options to explore with hand-held HDR, perfecting exposure on every photo I take, and/or photoshop magic



Mar 05, 2013 at 02:33 AM
Mauro Moretti
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #13 · p.16 #13 · Dynamic Range


I would like to have more DR, but Nikon cameras cannot use Canon lenses. Also, I think the 5D III, with the exception of DR, is a very balanced camera. I bought my 5DIII knowing their limitations and strengths. and I am happy to have a mini 1ds3 for half the price, with better AF, low light noise and video. DR for me is not the most important spec.



Mar 05, 2013 at 02:41 AM
Access
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #14 · p.16 #14 · Dynamic Range


mttran wrote:
Sure is not fair to most consumer. How many copies that consumer has to update in last decade in order to get tiny better in shadows IQ ...hence the DR. You can see it is not about canon vs sony vs nikon vs etc...DR thread. It is about canon milking process that some people is getting tired of.... and.....why thread like this one with differences argument keeps poping up once in awhile.

It's really not that bad, most photographers out there just want balance, and this is just one thing of many. You deal with it when you need to and move on, if you are buying into every little improvement thinking you must have more, then that's just as much on you as it is on them.



Mar 05, 2013 at 03:39 AM
saneproduction
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #15 · p.16 #15 · Dynamic Range


Kinda feel bad for starting this thread.


Mar 05, 2013 at 04:36 AM
chez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.16 #16 · p.16 #16 · Dynamic Range


saneproduction wrote:
Kinda feel bad for starting this thread.


Don't worry about it. They all turn out this way. There are some photogs that could use more DR in the type of photography they do...and others don't need anymore...and the saga continues. Just wish people who don't need or care about DR just would skip by the discussion so the ones that actually have a use for DR could have a civil discussion.



Mar 05, 2013 at 04:43 AM
mttran
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #17 · p.16 #17 · Dynamic Range


saneproduction wrote:
Kinda feel bad for starting this thread.


Don't be worry, Michael. Bottom line it's just a darn tool, no more no less. Beside, there is some hope here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1194525



Mar 05, 2013 at 06:53 AM
PhilDrinkwater
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #18 · p.16 #18 · Dynamic Range


chez wrote:
Don't worry about it. They all turn out this way. There are some photogs that could use more DR in the type of photography they do...and others don't need anymore...and the saga continues. Just wish people who don't need or care about DR just would skip by the discussion so the ones that actually have a use for DR could have a civil discussion.


Is there anything actually needing to be said, honestly?

"Canon need more DR for you users who require it. There is no software fix, although it can help. If it's financially viable, those users could switch to Nikon. Otherwise they'll have to wait. No one knows how long."

Maybe I'm missing something, but it's not a discussion that people always want to have, but a whine / bash Canon session which was fine 6-12 months ago when it was new and actually happening but it goes on and on and on and on...... and on. Not everyone, but definitely some.

And I know everyone is free to talk about what they want. I'm just making the point that, outside of those who don't need it chipping in that they don't need it and some people rather stupidly saying "it's because you don't expose properly", the photographers that don't need it don't have what I'd consider a civil discussion amongst themselves.

The reality is this: you have two options. Switch to Nikon or wait. There really isn't a discussion past this. Most of the posts are justification - why I *do* need it and why I *don't* need it. I think a lot of it is in response to earlier threads where those who do need it couldn't understand that others didn't need it and started calling those who don't "canon apologisers". Not exactly civil.




Mar 05, 2013 at 09:13 AM
Kolor-Pikker
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #19 · p.16 #19 · Dynamic Range


Re: switch to Nikon or wait -

Buy the one that fits your lenses and wait, new cameras come out like clockwork, but your glass always stay with you. If you're going to be constantly wanting the best and newest, you'll find that every hardware generation, each manufacturer will find a way to trounce the other in some new way...

What if Canon releases the rumored 46mp camera with say, 16 stops of DR, in half a year? Sure, you could have switched to Nikon in the mean time, but what would you do then, switch back yet again?

Cleaner shadows, and a little more DR is always nice, but it doesn't suddenly invalidate the billions of man hours spent developing and using the technology we had to get to this point.



Mar 05, 2013 at 11:27 AM
Stoffer
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #20 · p.16 #20 · Dynamic Range


Access wrote:
The thing about the raw converter is that is the one tool that has access to the original data. So the most pure forms of noise reduction can be applied there. Otherwise you apply noise reduction to a rendering or mapping of the raw. It requires a lot more manual tuning... but I mean, whatever works. From the early days of "noise ninja" back when I first got my rebel, to the more modern products, I honestly never had much luck with those types of tools. Sometimes they claim to do amazing things, but when you get down to actually
...Show more

This is also my experience. Besides that, I don't always find that the raising shadows look that terrible. Foliage with some modest detail present normally looks pretty ok in my book. The issue more apparent with uniform surfaces without much color details.

Access; if you're using Lightroom 4 and is bothered by color noise in the raised shadows, you could try and apply some Moiré with the Adjustment Brush. It doesn't always work, since it tends to remove color information, but sometimes it comes in handy.



Mar 05, 2013 at 02:55 PM
1       2       3              15      
16
       17       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              15      
16
       17       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password