millsart wrote:
Exactly, nor do you have to shoot 14bit NEF files, JPEG Basic medium could be fine for some things
When I'm shooting for some of my NCAA clients with my D3s I just use JPEG basic because they want smaller files for fast transfers and most of their usage is web anyway these days
If I'm shooting some landscape shots for my own enjoyment, then it would be 14bit NEF's because I'm realistically only going to be working on a handful of images and the file size, and processing time is fine.
I mean heck, I might spend a few hours doing revisions to a single file before I make my final print so if it takes 3 seconds vs 5 seconds to process does that really matter ? No, I can take 2 instead of 1 sips of coffee perhaps
I mean I guess if your way of shooting a landscape is to take 800 frames then to try to caption and transmit them all in the field with 36meg NEF's then yeah, you'll probably have problems.
But again though, who really shoots landscapes with the same overall workflow they would use when covering a NFL football game ??
Different tools, different lenses, different workflow, different deadlines etc, unless of course you've got picture desk editors for your sunrise landscape photo that require 6-10 different images with full captions sent within 15 minutes of the sun making it 5 degrees past the horizon, much like what many agencies want moved by the end of the 1st half of play....Show more →
Oh how I so miss the 90's (not!) when it was common to go out for lunch or something while the computer crunched through an image for an hour or two! Now we complain about 5 sec. v 3 sec.!
Well, how many people shoot their cameras at a reduced resolution now? I guess less than 5%. How many will change just because they have this 36mp camera? I guess none.
And how many people shoot exclusively either JPeg or RAW. I guess 75% to 80% of people do one or the other all the time no matter what.
And I also think people tend to do about the same things when processing a sunrise as the do when processing an NFL shot. CC, Sharpening, Curves, scaling, secondary sharpening, NR... and maybe another scaling+sharpening, and then save it out. Usually the only things that change are the amounts applied - and that has almost no impact on time.
So I don't really buy that this camera is going to come along and change the way everyone shoots and processes. Although maybe it will. I mean if they don't they're going to be wasting about three times more of their lifetimes sitting in front of the computer than they are now (assuming they're coming from a 12 to 16mp platform).
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Oh how I so miss the 90's (not!) when it was common to go out for lunch or something while the computer crunched through an image for an hour or two! Now we complain about 5 sec. v 3 sec.!
Hey I remember when panoramic software meant manually using a little crosshair tool to place a bunch of control points manually in every frame we wanted. Could take me an hour or more just to do a single pano, vs now where software like PTGui can no automatically align everything and even do HDR blending etc is just a matter of minutes.
Really is amazing how far things have come and I must also admit the pain it causes whenever I look at all the old 512 and 1 gig memory cards laying around on my shelves that are now worth less than the stamp it would take to mail one should i try to sell it and yet that I easily paid well over $100 for.8 gig CF cards are what $10 these days, yet my old Hitachi Microdrive, an "insane" 4gigs I believe cost me around $400 lol
millsart wrote:
Really is amazing how far things have come and I must also admit the pain it causes whenever I look at all the old 512 and 1 gig memory cards laying around on my shelves that are now worth less than the stamp it would take to mail one should i try to sell it and yet that I easily paid well over $100 for.8 gig CF cards are what $10 these days, yet my old Hitachi Microdrive, an "insane" 4gigs I believe cost me around $400 lol
The first digital camera I ever used (not counting scanners) was the Casio QV3000EX, which cost $999 but came with a whopping 340 megabyte microdrive.
Trust me, no one is sitting in a crowded media workroom with 45 other photographers during the 15 minutes of halftime playing with curves and secondary sharpening techniques. You may slightly crop and rotate and image, maybe a levels tweak if it really needs it and then your trying to find the correct spellings of the names on the roster and praying you can get a decent wifi signal in the stadium so you can move your images.
Likewise, anyone who's doing any event photography, such as shooting a marathon where your trying to get an image of each runner, when there are several thousand, is going to want to deal with 36 meg files. Even now on 12meg sensors we use JPEG sized small for that, because all we need to do is make a 4x6" print. Likewise as well your not going to shoot something like that raw. Want to batch convert 2000+ frames ?
You select the equipment and the way its used to suit the job. Shooting a wedding on Saturday, an NFL game on Sunday and then for relaxation taking a drive to shoot some landscape on Monday are all going to use different workflows, different lenses, different styles of shooting etc.
I don't even open Photoshop for my sports works, its all done in Photo Mechanic, yet I'm certainly not going to use PM for editing my fine art images. Thats why we have programs for image editing and others designed for a quick and easy way to caption and move images etc
Bifurcator wrote:
Well, how many people shoot their cameras at a reduced resolution now? I guess less than 5%. How many will change just because they have this 36mp camera? I guess none.
And how many people shoot exclusively either JPeg or RAW. I guess 75% to 80% of people do one or the other all the time no matter what.
And I also think people tend to do about the same things when processing a sunrise as the do when processing an NFL shot. CC, Sharpening, Curves, scaling, secondary sharpening, NR... and maybe another scaling+sharpening, and then save it out. Usually the only things that change are the amounts applied - and that has almost no impact on time.
So I don't really buy that this camera is going to come along and change the way everyone shoots and processes. Although maybe it will. I mean if they don't they're going to be wasting about three times more of their lifetimes sitting in front of the computer than they are now.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Re USB, the D800 offers USB 3/ 5GBit/sec as stated in it's specs.
Ah, cool! So DLing won't be too bad! That's nice!
Perhaps you were using something cutting edge 5-6 yrs ago but I have seen a dramatic increase in HD speed over that time. Processor speed has also kept pace, ram is dirt cheap, most software is 64 bit, and son on. Honestly, 36MP is nothing to deal with on current hardware unless your using an iPad or something (but then the next quad core version is right around the corner). Each individual's needs and requirements are obviously unique/ different though. More power to anyone who wants to stick with their 128K computers! For me, 36MP will do just fine though I would prefer 60-80MP....Show more →
Hmm, no. HDDs 6 to 8 years ago were doing a throughput of about 20 ~ 25mb/s and they're doing just about that now. Buss speeds have increased tho so now RAID levels 0 and 5 have enough room to benefit from more then 3 or four drives. But Single HDDs and 2-drive RAIDs are about the same. Just bigger mostly.
Processors 5 or 6 years ago were 3.4GHz or 3.6GHz and that's what they are today too. Actually unless you're rich they've actually gotten slower with 2.4GHz being much more common. The difference is that now instead of only one or two cores we're talking 4, 6 or 12 cores. But that only helps when the software can and does split it's processing between the cores. Some process scale exceptionally well while others don't do so hot or can't at all. In all again, mostly the RAM and Storage bus I/O speeds are responsible for most of the speedups we've seen in the past 5 or 6 years considering image processing. I guess my 8-core mac isn't twice as fast as my 3.66 dual from 6 years ago. Sometimes it's actually slower being only 2.66. On average for images I guess I'm getting 1.2x to 1.5x out of it.
1.2x to 1.5x speed increase but over the past 6 years we've gone from 8mp to now 36mp.. 4.5x
1.5x != 4.5x = Computers are NOT keeping up.
Calculation intensive 3D rendering is different tho! It scales linearly across the procs so 12 cores will get ya 11.8x speed increases. But not really for image processing... CUDA with multiple $500 ~ $1k GPU cards will increase IMP but who has that?
Bifurcator wrote:
Hmm, no. HDDs 6 to 8 years ago were doing a throughput of about 20 ~ 25mb/s and they're doing just about that now. Buss speeds have increased tho so now RAID levels 0 and 5 have enough room to benefit from more then 3 or four drives. But Single HDDs and 2-drive RAIDs are about the same. Just bigger mostly.
Processors 5 or 6 years ago were 3.4GHz or 3.6GHz and that's what they are today too. Actually unless you're rich they've actually gotten slower with 2.4GHz being much more common. The difference is that now instead of only one or two cores we're talking 4, 6 or 12 cores. But that only helps when the software can and does split it's processing between the cores. Some process scale exceptionally well while others don't do so hot or can't at all. In all again, mostly the RAM and Storage bus I/O speeds are responsible for most of the speedups we've seen in the past 5 or 6 years considering image processing. I guess my 8-core mac isn't twice as fast as my 3.66 dual from 6 years ago. Sometimes it's actually slower being only 2.66. On average for images I guess I'm getting 1.2x to 1.5x out of it.
1.2x to 1.5x speed increase but over the past 6 years we've gone from 8mp to now 36mp.. 4.5x
1.5x != 4.5x = Computers are NOT keeping up.
Calculation intensive 3D rendering is different tho! It scales linearly across the procs so 12 cores will get ya 11.8x speed increases. But not really for image processing... CUDA with multiple $500 ~ $1k GPU cards will increase IMP but who has that?
A 2GH high end processor from five years ago does not equate to one today. There is more to it than simply comparing the GHz and even the number of cores! I can see why you might think there has not been any improvement if that's all your comparing.
Six years ago, my spinning HD probably did have a speed of 25-30MB/s. Not today. Even with an economy, spinning HD, the actual throughput over SATA is greater than double that - 60+MB/s. Move over to something like a solid state drive and SATA III and it's an easy 100MB/s PLUS. So, yes, HD speed has doubled, tripled and even quadrupled over that period of time. Granted, software has become more bloated and all our requirements/ demands on speed have increased but I still think technology with regard to this stuff has more than kept up. I certainly don't begrudge anyone who chooses not to jump into the upgrade loop though.
At £2400, I would have no problems selling up my Canon kit and moving, if it wasn't for my Contax, Rokkor and ZE lenses. Canon is lucky that Alt isn't quite as easy on a Nikon.
snowboarder wrote:
I use my laptop for 100% of my image processing
and there is no way I'm back to using a big computer.
8GB sure isn't enough for me.
Look, I'm not saying it's not doable, it's just
a step backwards in my workflow.
Don't think it's worth it.
If the processing workflow is a more important consideration than the ultimate resolution of the final product, a D800 or D800E isn't worth it to you. But why complain about the increased resolution when there are computing solutions that would alleviate the bottlenecks the extra information creates?
lordarka wrote:
If the processing workflow is a more important consideration than the ultimate resolution of the final product, a D800 or D800E isn't worth it to you. But why complain about the increased resolution when there are computing solutions that would alleviate the bottlenecks the extra information creates?
Arka C.
For the same reason most people would like to lose weight yet not have to change their eating habits or exercise.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
A 2GH high end processor from five years ago does not equate to one today. There is more to it than simply comparing the GHz and even the number of cores!
Yeah, I'm a computer science major, I know all the finer points. There is some difference. Not NEARLY as much as you might think in actual real-world practice!
But I hope this doesn't get too complicated. We're talking about the Nikon. And I clearly showed that it increases a person's editing time by a factor of about 2 or 3. When added up from editing a shoot like a wedding or even a day at the beach with your kids the extra hours one will spend can be significant. And to the point IMO, where most potential buyers for this camera will feel swamped by the task! Including if they use something like LR or C1 exclusively.
That was really my only point.
I would like to know of this consumer HDD you speak of that gets 60+MB/s throughput. Any links? Remember if you're talking about HS Server class drives they were also available 8 years ago and got about 50mb/s to 60mb/s too. SSD's are faster at reading but not so much at writing. They have an inverted profile from an HDD. And they're still insanely expensive AFAIK.
Jman13 wrote:
The 5D2 doesn't have enough resolution for 13x19 with a little cropping? What are you doing, viewing them with a magnifying glass from 5 inches? A slightly cropped 5D2 file at 19" wide is about 270 dpi. The limit of human vision is around 300 dpi at 12 inches viewing distance, which is way closer than normal viewing distance for a 19" print (around 24 inches is typical viewing distance for a 19" print).
if the print is going to be at 300 dpi no matter what, it would be nice not to have to up res it, i imagine. also the limit of human vision is on average around 300 dpi at 12" viewing distance with a pretty big standard deviation. there are certainly some people who like to look at prints super close and people with much better than 20/20 vision (there are also lots of people who can't even focus at 12"). there is certainly a market for 36mp.
Bifurcator wrote:
I agree but I don't think you'll see any difference at 40x60 either. Because to view that image you need to be about 2 or 3 meters back and at that point human vision is around 50dpi.
I like it: "image quality snobbery" IQS
Everytime I go to a gallery the people there are up close to the large prints. This concept of standing back is totally false. Yes, people start looking at the print from far away to take in the entire image...then they move in to see the fine details and the image within the image. Just watch people in a gallery and you'll see this time and again.
Bifurcator wrote: Well, how many people shoot their cameras at a reduced resolution now? I guess less than 5%. How many will change just because they have this 36mp camera? I guess none.
And how many people shoot exclusively either JPeg or RAW. I guess 75% to 80% of people do one or the other all the time no matter what.
And I also think people tend to do about the same things when processing a sunrise as the do when processing an NFL shot. CC, Sharpening, Curves, scaling, secondary sharpening, NR... and maybe another scaling+sharpening, and then save it out. Usually the only things that change are the amounts applied - and that has almost no impact on time.
So I don't really buy that this camera is going to come along and change the way everyone shoots and processes. Although maybe it will. I mean if they don't they're going to be wasting about three times more of their lifetimes sitting in front of the computer than they are now (assuming they're coming from a 12 to 16mp platform).
Maybe people don't shoot at any reduced resolution right now is because the cameras are already at a reduced resolution and people don't want to throw away any of the resolution. When you up the anti to 36mpix, you have some you can throw away and still have plenty to go around.
Seems ideal for me. I mostly shoot landscapes and I would use the full 36mpix for everyone of those shots. I also shoot events, and I would use a reduced resolution as photos from events are rarely printed larger than 16x20 or so.
I actually think that in good light, many will shoot the camera at compressed raw + medium/fine jpeg setting.
One of the most important aspects of a high res camera (I know, I nag about this...) is that you can downsample the images. A downsampled image will - if it is done right - contain loads and loads more of actual real reality-based detail in the image file.
I've shown the difference between a D3x downsampled > 12MP file and a D700 native 12MP file many times. When you see them side by side the D700 at it's native resolution looks like something that's been up-sampled in comparison. It makes you wonder about the "12MP" label we put on the image, since it doesn't even closely resemble an image with all 12MP's filled with real resolution detail. And note the "real" part of that sentence, I want the detail to have some resemblance of reality. If it wasn't in front of the lens I don't want it in the file. I may then mess up reality based on MY wants and wills, but that's MY choice, not the camera's.
