Depends on what guitar he's playin' John :P Sometimes that's my C string, sometimes it's my Db string, ya never know...it's a pain in the arse having to have so many tunings to play current covers. Everything should be in Eb.
That link you provided is one of the most disturbing and effed up things I've read. Almost as bad as the "bug chasers".
brainiac wrote:
[...] Maybe the D3 is just the prince of high iso, not the king. It would be fun to see a no punches pulled comparison.
it's funny you mention that. back in the day i did a high ISO comparison between camera X and camera Y, where both cameras have a different max sensor resolution. i ended up creating a matrix for comparison, where i upscaled camera X images OR downscaled camera Y images OR left both as-is. on that note, what do you think is a fair comparison between a super-mega-pixel camera like the 1ds3 and a camera like the d3 that has about half of the pixels?
btw. great pic and awesome camera! way to put it to good use- to use it for what it was made for.
Ron Hew wrote:
Even ISO 400 is too much noise if you expose wrongly
Well, yes and no. By "exposing wrongly" you most likely mean "underexposing" (please correct me if I am wrong). And the picture in the OP is _on purpose_ underexposed by two stops. Intentional and unintentional underexposure are technically the same - both will be treated with the exposure slider moved right. One you do consciously, the other is an oops, but that's about it.
1DsMkIII love fest notwithstanding, someone please educate me on how you "push" a properly exposed ISO 3200 file two stops and make it 12800? Aren't you way over exposing your image?
Now I suppose if you're purposely underexposing by two stops to get a faster shutter speed so your subject isn't blurry, you don't have much of a choice. But why not just get a camera that does what you want natively?
24Peter wrote:
1DsMkIII love fest notwithstanding, someone please educate me on how you "push" a properly exposed ISO 3200 file two stops and make it 12800? Aren't you way over exposing your image?
Nobody said anything about properly exposing (not that I had noticed, anyway). The image is on purpose two stops under.
Now I suppose if you're purposely underexposing by two stops to get a faster shutter speed so your subject isn't blurry, you don't have much of a choice. But why not just get a camera that does what you want natively?
Because you may not have one, or have one on hand In the Canon lineup, you may be disappointed getting a 12800 capable camera today.
A RAW full frame pushed to ISO 12800 in Lightroom 1.4.1, accepting the defaults except for exposure and white balance. Notice the banding in the midtone area at upper left: http://www.rapideye.co.za/samples/full_frame_12800.jpg
Why ISO 12800 anyway? Looks like a pretty ordinary shot and decent light. So I wonder why Please don't tell me "just to prove that canon is better than nikon..."
Glassbottle, LR and ACR dump a significant amount of noise into an image. It is not what I would use to convert from RAW for a high ISO shot ever. Especially if Im in a recovery situation like above.
Convert in DPP with noise and sharpness OFF. WB, brighten. Finish in PS
morganb4 wrote:
Glassbottle, LR and ACR dump a significant amount of noise into an image. It is not what I would use to convert from RAW for a high ISO shot
Edited to add: My questions below are now answered in your post. Could've sworn ... never mind
... and so you would use... ? DPP ?
I have DXO Optics 5.1 as well. Might try that for laughs.
By the way, I feel Lightroom's noise performance has improved enormously in the last couple of releases. It was pretty tacky back at 1.1.
Edited by Glassbottle on Jul 04, 2008 at 12:44 PM GMT
stanj wrote:
Intentional and unintentional underexposure are technically the same - both will be treated with the exposure slider moved right. One you do consciously, the other is an oops, but that's about it.
But remember, when explaining to clients, it's always intentional, and they don't deserve talent on your scale. ;-)
Glassbottle,
Yes I would, for critical shots. Also if Im having stress WB an image then I can be pretty sure that DPP can do it.
Dont get me wrong, Im not saying that DPP is a better RAW conversion package than LR, I just think that its a better RAW converter than the ACR engine.
If you love LR so much you may want to try using DPP to convert to TIFF and do the colour and funky stuff in LR?
morganb4 wrote:
Dont get me wrong, Im not saying that DPP is a better RAW conversion package than LR, I just think that its a better RAW converter than the ACR engine.
I agree. Now that you mention it, I'm looking forward to trying it out when I get back to my desktop computer.
Still curious to hear from Brainiac what his method was.
24Peter wrote:
Now I suppose if you're purposely underexposing by two stops to get a faster shutter speed so your subject isn't blurry, you don't have much of a choice.
That's exactly it. Set iso 3200 and -2 exp comp, and you are now really shooting at 12800. Images will look very underexposed on the camera, but push two stops in your raw developer, and you have a nicely exposed shot like the one I showed above. It really is exactly the same thing as shooting at iso 12800, as your shutter speed and aperture are what they would be with that iso.
>But why not just get a camera that does what you want natively?
In my case, looking at the 5D and 1D3, and Canon's long-standing lead in sensors if not in noise-reduction, I decided that the 1Ds3 would very likely match the D3's famous high iso performance, so I went ahead and bought one instead of waiting for a D3. I figured Nikon's full-frame chip had probably caught up with the 2005 5D, and the rest is noise reduction. Luckily, it worked out for me, and I don't need to get a Nikon for high iso performance.
There is also the small matter of (full-frame 14 bit) 21 megapixel, which makes it the current king of everything image quality related, unless low iso clunky medium format appeals. It has 9 million more pixels than a D3, which, apart from anything else, makes cropping a pleasure. Although it narrowly beats the D3 at iso 12800, at iso 200 it stomps all over it.
Like Morgan said, convert in latest DPP with no NR, no sharpening. If you want to sharpen in photoshop, then convert to Lab mode, and run USM only on the L channel. 0.5 to 0.7 pixel radius, and anything up to 400% or more works for me, depending on the material.
Don, I think your LR conversion looks OK. At 12800 you will often see streaking, and I don't know the best way to minimise its impact. I have noticed it in D3 high iso files too but not as bad. What I like about the 1Ds3 effort though, is that it seems to retain a lot more pictorial information than a D3. As a vinyl fan, that suits me. In short, it seems that iso 12800 is harder work on a 1Ds3, but ultimately better.
In the Canon lineup, you may be disappointed getting a 12800 capable camera today.
Please don't tell me "just to prove that canon is better than nikon..."