p.5 #1 · Canon 80D dynamic range: good news! (quick test with RAW images)
technic wrote:
When pulling many stops it is almost by definition local adjustments that require using layers in Photoshop. No easy way to do it 'automatically' for the whole image, although I guess a suitable HDR program might work sometimes.
Even when using a simple 2-3 stop ND grad filter in Camera RAW I already get visible chroma noise in my Canon images that is almost impossible to clean up.
I will have to disagree a bit on this. Firstly, doing local adjustments in layers in Photoshop are less than ideal IMO. As far as it is possible I really prefer to do this in the raw converter. Both Lightroom and Capture One has good tools for this.
Secondly, I have always found it fairly easy to get rid of the color noise. My problem has been pattern noise and then the luminance noise that tend to make the colors look a bit washed out.
p.5 #3 · Canon 80D dynamic range: good news! (quick test with RAW images)
Stoffer wrote:
I will have to disagree a bit on this. Firstly, doing local adjustments in layers in Photoshop are less than ideal IMO. As far as it is possible I really prefer to do this in the raw converter. Both Lightroom and Capture One has good tools for this.
Secondly, I have always found it fairly easy to get rid of the color noise. My problem has been pattern noise and then the luminance noise that tend to make the colors look a bit washed out.
But now I going a bit off topic.
I agree that it would be better to do this in the RAW converter, but I only have PS and not Lightroom or Capture One (used them years ago but haven't upgraded in a long time; I will probably move back to Lightroom when I buy a new body).
As for the noise at least with the older Canon's it's very difficult to get rid of IMHO without destroying both detail and colors. Not sure if it's just color noise that I have a problem with, pattern noise might be part of the mix as well; it just is pretty irregular = disturbing ;-)
p.5 #4 · Canon 80D dynamic range: good news! (quick test with RAW images)
A whole lot of adjustments, including many local adjustments, can be done directly in ACR by those who use Photoshop*. The cool thing is that the image can then open in Photoshop as a smart layer, allowing further non-destructive editing (including even more local adjustments) and you can return to the ACR raw processor to update or add more local and global adjustments.
p.5 #5 · Canon 80D dynamic range: good news! (quick test with RAW images)
ggreene wrote:
I would agree. Have yet to see an image with shadows pushed 5+ stops that looks "real" for lack of a better term. It always seems to have that HDR tone to it that just looks fake. Even some of the less exaggerated pushes look fake to me.
1. you need to look at more images processed by more different people.
2. As I said a while back HDR will hit displays before people realize (i.e. in a few years not like 25+ as you'd have thought by comments here). And so no there are HDR TVs already shipping (in fact the industry want to soon make ALL shipping displays HDR, 4K+ and ultra wide gamut). It won't be long before there are all sorts of displays offering 2-4 more stops than current ones and with nearly perfect blacks so you'll both have a nice wide spread from black to brightest and enough tones to spread things around it all without all sorts of banding (thanks to the new tone curve standard). There is talk about crazy DR for some ultra-high end stuff for theaters and such soon. And look how even just IMAX Laser 3D looks way better than regular Xenon IMAX in terms of black levels and DR and they don't even get the Dolby HDR 'prints' to show. Don't always think in the past, you need to think for the future and know what is coming too. I have to say filmmakers and videographers appear to be more open, on average, to the future and understanding that things like DR are not bad words or some nonsense for fools in a lab, perhaps because few of them seem to be into brands but simply into doing things in the real world and trying to open up new boundaries in what they can do in the real world.
and I won't respond to this post either since I don't want to be sucked into all the nonsense again
p.5 #6 · Canon 80D dynamic range: good news! (quick test with RAW images)
alundeb wrote:
After using local adjustments with control points with the Nik Viveza plug-in, I will never go back to manual layers and masks. Oops, off topic, yes
I'm with you for most of my work...NIK is just so powerful. Just wish Google stayed out of it as they basically stopped any further development.
p.5 #8 · Canon 80D dynamic range: good news! (quick test with RAW images)
ggreene wrote:
I would agree. Have yet to see an image with shadows pushed 5+ stops that looks "real" for lack of a better term. It always seems to have that HDR tone to it that just looks fake. Even some of the less exaggerated pushes look fake to me.
Yes, this is what I found no matter how much shadow noise in the image, more the push more the fake color and strange contrast (micro contrast?) like those CG image that limit the use of this kind of "push shadow techique" for perfect exposure for me. In my experience, 2-3 stops push is acceptable but 4-6 stops push is really depend on what kind of subject in the shadow.
p.5 #9 · Canon 80D dynamic range: good news! (quick test with RAW images)
ggreene wrote:
Better then a lot of large pushes I've seen but still with washed out colors especially the skin tones. HDR is wasted on me. I'm just not a fan of it.
I think Snapsy example is OK because the people is not the focus, just a background to show the atmosphere.
p.5 #10 · Canon 80D dynamic range: good news! (quick test with RAW images)
technic wrote:
When pulling many stops it is almost by definition local adjustments that require using layers in Photoshop. No easy way to do it 'automatically' for the whole image, although I guess a suitable HDR program might work sometimes.
Even when using a simple 2-3 stop ND grad filter in Camera RAW I already get visible chroma noise in my Canon images that is almost impossible to clean up. Having 2-4 stops more DR would be a big help there and enable working without real ND grad filters (much easier to carefully adjust in post than in real life ...).
Thanks technic, I understand local adjustment, just want to know if there is any trick to correct the tone and distorted color after the 5-6 EV pushed shadow
p.5 #11 · Canon 80D dynamic range: good news! (quick test with RAW images)
I checked the specs and could not find it. Does it have MFA? I think the 60D did not have it which turned some people off and I don't know anything about the 70D.
p.5 #12 · Canon 80D dynamic range: good news! (quick test with RAW images)
skibum5 wrote:
1. you need to look at more images processed by more different people.
2. As I said a while back HDR will hit displays before people realize (i.e. in a few years not like 25+ as you'd have thought by comments here). And so no there are HDR TVs already shipping (in fact the industry want to soon make ALL shipping displays HDR, 4K+ and ultra wide gamut). It won't be long before there are all sorts of displays offering 2-4 more stops than current ones and with nearly perfect blacks so you'll both have a nice wide spread from black to brightest and enough tones to spread things around it all without all sorts of banding (thanks to the new tone curve standard). There is talk about crazy DR for some ultra-high end stuff for theaters and such soon. And look how even just IMAX Laser 3D looks way better than regular Xenon IMAX in terms of black levels and DR and they don't even get the Dolby HDR 'prints' to show. Don't always think in the past, you need to think for the future and know what is coming too. I have to say filmmakers and videographers appear to be more open, on average, to the future and understanding that things like DR are not bad words or some nonsense for fools in a lab, perhaps because few of them seem to be into brands but simply into doing things in the real world and trying to open up new boundaries in what they can do in the real world.
and I won't respond to this post either since I don't want to be sucked into all the nonsense again ...Show more →
+1, the more DR the better ...let them working for your wallet and not the other way around
p.5 #13 · Canon 80D dynamic range: good news! (quick test with RAW images)
Zenon Char wrote:
I checked the specs and could not find it. Does it have MFA? I think the 60D did not have it which turned some people off and I don't know anything about the 70D.
p.5 #15 · Canon 80D dynamic range: good news! (quick test with RAW images)
I had ordered a 7D2 but I am thinking I am going to "take a chance" on a new 80D instead. A slightly better sensor combined with slightly more accurate AF (if this is the case) would make me a happy guy.
p.5 #16 · Canon 80D dynamic range: good news! (quick test with RAW images)
lowside67 wrote:
I had ordered a 7D2 but I am thinking I am going to "take a chance" on a new 80D instead. A slightly better sensor combined with slightly more accurate AF (if this is the case) would make me a happy guy.
Mark
I have my order in and I'm also hoping the AF is more accurate and less likely to have spasms like the 7D2 is prone to. I hope to get the camera next week and as soon as I do, I'll be out comparing it to the 7D2. I'm also looking forward to using 27 f/8 points with the 100-400II + 1.4TCIII. Should be an even better walk around birding camera/lens combo with more freedom to compose.
p.5 #17 · Canon 80D dynamic range: good news! (quick test with RAW images)
arbitrage wrote:
I have my order in and I'm also hoping the AF is more accurate and less likely to have spasms like the 7D2 is prone to. I hope to get the camera next week and as soon as I do, I'll be out comparing it to the 7D2. I'm also looking forward to using 27 f/8 points with the 100-400II + 1.4TCIII. Should be an even better walk around birding camera/lens combo with more freedom to compose.
It's too bad Canon decided to cripple it by only allowing f8 with two lenses. Otherwise I'd be on it in a heartbeat.
p.5 #18 · Canon 80D dynamic range: good news! (quick test with RAW images)
Iwas joeking wrote:
It's too bad Canon decided to cripple it by only allowing f8 with two lenses. Otherwise I'd be on it in a heartbeat.
You can still use all f/8 combos, although limited to the centre point as on all previous f/8 bodies.
I'm not sure Canon deliberately crippled it because why wouldn't they allow 27 points with the 200-400 to be used with internal 1.4 and external 1.4 if they are allowing it to be used with the 2x?? There must be some sort of reasoning behind that decision other than just deliberate crippling.
p.5 #19 · Canon 80D dynamic range: good news! (quick test with RAW images)
arbitrage wrote:
You can still use all f/8 combos, although limited to the centre point as on all previous f/8 bodies.
I'm not sure Canon deliberately crippled it because why wouldn't they allow 27 points with the 200-400 to be used with internal 1.4 and external 1.4 if they are allowing it to be used with the 2x?? There must be some sort of reasoning behind that decision other than just deliberate crippling.
No idea, but if someone has a reason that explains the reason, I'd like to hear it. It's too bad, it would be a killer combo with the 400DO and 2x.
p.5 #20 · Canon 80D dynamic range: good news! (quick test with RAW images)
Is it really reasonable to expect the cheapest Canon body for sale outside the Rebel line must autofocus all F8 combos with 27 points? I mean a 5D3, 5DSR, 7D2, 1DX can't do it either, so it is in good company!
