p.3 #1 · Sony's star-eater algorithm not fixed by f/w 4.0
If anyone buys Nespresso because of Clooney, they deserve to waste their cash.
If there is an example of a brand ambassador being critical and losing the position, respect!
If there are others thanking their patron for the previlege and the blessings to carry out the agenda..well..(you might seen the parody on youtube)
chez wrote:
I'm just pointing out that this is how this world turns. Do you really think any of the "paid" ambassadors are anything other than advertisers for the product. They take nice pictures, they generate hype...they get photogs excited about the product...just like George Clooney and Nexpresso.
p.3 #4 · Sony's star-eater algorithm not fixed by f/w 4.0
I've shot Canon, Nikon, Leica, Olympus, Sigma, Panasonic, Fuji and Sony at various points in the past decade or so, always having paid out of pocket for everything, and in most cases, using such tools to earn at least a comfortable living.
For the right price, I'd gladly shoot any one of them exclusively again
For example, if someone wants to give me a A9 and 35 and 85 GM lenses, I'll be happy to not touch anything else
p.3 #5 · Sony's star-eater algorithm not fixed by f/w 4.0
realVivek wrote:
There are clear differences. Clooney is a hollywood actor. His strength is in acting.
Nikon hired Ashton Kutcher to promote Nikon 1. That is similar.
Hasselblad Lunar was promoted by an astronaut. Tang, Lunar- impressive portfolio.
Might be different but the goals are the same...to sell YOU on the product...not to give you an honest review of the product. I can see why you might be disappointed with these ambassadors if you thought they were giving their honest review of the camera.
Personally I give zero credence to any of these guys and wait for the early adopters to give the equipment a fair shake. I'm never in a hurry to be the first one on the block with a new toy as experience taught me there is always growing pains with a product launch and production lines need to be tweaked, firmware finalized etc...
I've managed complex products for over 30 years and totally understand the complexities and impossibilities of releasing a perfect product from the get go. Won't happen.
p.3 #7 · Sony's star-eater algorithm not fixed by f/w 4.0
millsart wrote:
I've shot Canon, Nikon, Leica, Olympus, Sigma, Panasonic, Fuji and Sony at various points in the past decade or so, always having paid out of pocket for everything, and in most cases, using such tools to earn at least a comfortable living.
For the right price, I'd gladly shoot any one of them exclusively again
For example, if someone wants to give me a A9 and 35 and 85 GM lenses, I'll be happy to not touch anything else
Man you are a cheap advert. I'd hold out for at least the 3 GM zooms and a couple month excursion to say Kauai to test out the equipment so you can bring back a few nice photos.
p.3 #8 · Sony's star-eater algorithm not fixed by f/w 4.0
I thought you were aware of the issue at hand? The star eater was introduced in a firmware "update"!
chez wrote:
I've managed complex products for over 30 years and totally understand the complexities and impossibilities of releasing a perfect product from the get go. Won't happen.
p.3 #14 · Sony's star-eater algorithm not fixed by f/w 4.0
Between 3,2 seconds to 4 seconds I'm not able to see too much... the file of 29 seconds looks with less details, but is a bit dificult in that screen capture.
What it got my attention, it is the file size, you see a small decrease between the 3 seconds to 4 seconds. 29 seconds has half the size... but not sure the influence of just using ISO 50 instead of 400 or the loss of detail (with less detail, JPEG algorithms can compress more the image).
p.3 #15 · Sony's star-eater algorithm not fixed by f/w 4.0
dgpfotografia wrote:
Between 3,2 seconds to 4 seconds I'm not able to see too much... the file of 29 seconds looks with less details, but is a bit dificult in that screen capture.
What it got my attention, it is the file size, you see a small decrease between the 3 seconds to 4 seconds. 29 seconds has half the size... but not sure the influence of just using ISO 50 instead of 400 or the loss of detail (with less detail, JPEG algorithms can compress more the image).
Yep, that's true. Anyway, as you can see, the differences are really small. I dare to say: Nothing to worry about...
Star sky /stars is a different story. There is no doubt that even the latest star eater algorithm (v.4.0) eats dim stars, maybe not as much as before, but still do it.
I hope Sony is still working on this.
This is not a disaster, but it would be very useful & great if the user could choose between spatial filtering and completely pure RAW data, without filtering! Like it has been a point since the beginning!
p.3 #17 · Sony's star-eater algorithm not fixed by f/w 4.0
dgpfotografia wrote:
Between 3,2 seconds to 4 seconds I'm not able to see too much... the file of 29 seconds looks with less details, but is a bit dificult in that screen capture.
What it got my attention, it is the file size, you see a small decrease between the 3 seconds to 4 seconds. 29 seconds has half the size... but not sure the influence of just using ISO 50 instead of 400 or the loss of detail (with less detail, JPEG algorithms can compress more the image).
The a7RII does not offer lossless raw compression. Lossy compressed files are about 42MB. Uncompressed files are about 84 MB. Except for the JPEG preview image, the size of the file is not dependent on its content.
p.3 #18 · Sony's star-eater algorithm not fixed by f/w 4.0
JimKasson wrote:
The a7RII does not offer lossless raw compression. Lossy compressed files are about 42MB. Uncompressed files are about 84 MB. Except for the JPEG preview image, the size of the file is not dependent on its content.
...I shot originally uncompressed RAWs (A7RII), and these RAW files processed in ACR, and saved later to jpg format (in Photoshop). So FastStone shows there only jpg sizes... but I agree that small decrease between the 3 seconds to 4 seconds (file sizes) is real phenomenon .... What comes to 29 second exposure and its small size - I think it's influence of using ISO 50 instead of 400 (less noise "details")...
p.3 #19 · Sony's star-eater algorithm not fixed by f/w 4.0
JimKasson wrote:
The a7RII does not offer lossless raw compression. Lossy compressed files are about 42MB. Uncompressed files are about 84 MB. Except for the JPEG preview image, the size of the file is not dependent on its content.
Jim
Hi Jim,
Yes, I totatly agree with you on that (and I already knew it). As Ari comments before, we are talking about the screen capture he published in DPReview: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59697860 , the file size information are from the JPEGs generated from the RAWs of his A7R II.
p.3 #20 · Sony's star-eater algorithm not fixed by f/w 4.0
dgpfotografia wrote:
Yes, I totally agree with you on that (and I already knew it). As Ari comments before, we are talking about the screen capture he published in DPReview: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59697860 , the file size information are from the JPEGs generated from the RAWs of his A7R II.
Got it now. I don't think the way to evaluate images for this problem is to look at JPEGs, where the DCT may be doing some of the things the hot-pixel suppression algorithm does. Better to look at raw planes in TIFF form, IMO.
