I followed the advice on Imaging Resources and have Zoombrowser 5.8 installed but cannot get Zoombrowser to edit the image. I can view it but when I go to edit, I get the following error "Select a RAW image taken with a Canon camera."
Has anybody figured out how to get the 1DIII RAW images out to PS?
If you see the image on the net in your browser, then it can't be in RAW form. The Web can't display RAW. So if you downloaded it from the Web, I assume it's a jpeg. You can't go back from jpeg to RAW.
colorchange wrote:
I followed the advice on Imaging Resources and have Zoombrowser 5.8 installed but cannot get Zoombrowser to edit the image. I can view it but when I go to edit, I get the following error "Select a RAW image taken with a Canon camera."
Has anybody figured out how to get the 1DIII RAW images out to PS?
Linda Baldwin wrote:
>>Resolution is resolution (number of pixels, period). It has nothing to do with dpi or ppi.<<
Linda
It appears that everyone is getting into the pricing speculations here! Anyway, i get the part about the dpi, but what I am curious is why the file is displayed at 350 dpi instead of 72 dpi for the 1D3? The 6MP 10D file was displayed at 180 dpi by default, I just realized that the G7 is defaulted at 180 dpi too. Is the 350 the default dpi or was it because it was converted from RAW from DPP and the resolution was set at 350? I've downloaded a few files taken from a 5D from dpreview and the dpi when viewed in CS is also 350, but there was a footnote stating that it was converted from RAW via DPP.
There is nothing much to it actually, I was just curious!
Vistek's site has the 1DmkIII listed for $5,599 CDN, but no availability date is listed. That is approx $4,760 USD. f I remember correctly, the 1DIIN originally was selling for $5,400 CDN when it first came out. I bought my 1DIIN from B&H approx 2 mths after it came out for $3,899 USD.
They don't have a price listed for the 16-35L lI lens yet. However, the original 16-35L lens was on sale for $1,569 as late as this past Tuesday. Today, the old lens is listed at $1,999. I figure that in Canada at least the new lens will probably have either the same price or slightly higher.
It's not worth fooling with the math to see if I'm right, but it looks like your images are all being defaulted to the same size PRINT. Thus the dpi will be higher for higher res images, lower for lower res images. Divide the horizontal number of pixels by the dpi that is displayed for each and see if they come to the same number of inches horizontally.
Linda Baldwin wrote:
If you see the image on the net in your browser, then it can't be in RAW form. The Web can't display RAW. So if you downloaded it from the Web, I assume it's a jpeg. You can't go back from jpeg to RAW.
Linda
*Any* file can be downloaded from the Web, but not all can be displayed in your browser.
>>*Any* file can be downloaded from the Web, but not all can be displayed in your browser.<<
Yehbut.....I didn't say he couldn't download a RAW file. I assumed he was downloading an image he was looking at in his browser, therefore it couldn't be a RAW image file. Of course you're right that you can download any format file from the Web. Best to avoid viruses though.
Beni wrote:
As a pro, buying from the states isn't worth the hassle with the accountant and with warranty stuff. Yes you pay more but you can't afford to pay less. Bit of a bugger really.
Thanks for that, so I'm right that a US warranty is not covered in the UK? Once you get the VAT back it is actually close to parity... but I agree if you can wait a few months the price should come off it's intro level
Camera Canada has the 1D3 listed for $6999 !!!! CAD.
At $4000 US I was seriously considering the 1D3..
At 7000 Canadian there is no chance of me buying it in Canada. Even if I could afford it this is just too rediculous a price for a piece of camera gear... sorry. Must be an early "on the safe side price". ??
Back to lovin' my 20D for a while yet until more reasonable pricing appears.
khurram1 wrote:
Vistek's site has the 1DmkIII listed for $5,599 CDN, but no availability date is listed. That is approx $4,760 USD. f I remember correctly, the 1DIIN originally was selling for $5,400 CDN when it first came out. I bought my 1DIIN from B&H approx 2 mths after it came out for $3,899 USD.
They don't have a price listed for the 16-35L lI lens yet. However, the original 16-35L lens was on sale for $1,569 as late as this past Tuesday. Today, the old lens is listed at $1,999. I figure that in Canada at least the new lens will probably have either the same price or slightly higher....Show more →
Vistek is at $5499, which sort of make my above post irrelevant but still about $1000 more if the $4000 US comes true
As to ISO speed: I regularly use ISO 1600 with JPEGs and 3200 with RAW with my 5D's 8.2u pixels with excellent available light results.
The MkIII's new 7.2u pixel has the same size "light bucket" as today's 8.2u pixel and improvements in on-chip processing. Canon claims a 6400 ISO which looks pretty good in the publicity shots. Doing the, simple, math that makes possible a new FF 5D MkII chip with 15Mp/6400 ISO or a 12.7Mp with 9800/12800 ISO!
SoundHound wrote:
Doing the, simple, math that makes possible a new FF 5D MkII chip with 15Mp/6400 ISO or a 12.7Mp with 9800/12800 ISO!
Is it even possible to achieve 9800/12800 ISO? I mean, ISO 6400 is pretty much the max for ANY film camera. With a 1V, to get ISO 6400, you'd have to push ISO 3200 by a whole stop, and it's the max the 1V will go as far as pushing ISO speed. I'm talking about B&W negs., which has a lot more latitude (at least 3 stops) than digital. The resulting images from a pushed ISO 3200 neg. to 6400 in low light situations is a hit & miss. You would end up with some images that are barely usable. IMO at ISO 12800, it will produce unusable images and would be unfeasible to even try to accomplish without the aid of strobes & lower ISO settings. Also keep in mind that with digital, the more the MP & the higher ISO, the the worse the noise gets & the more the loss of the details.
Mike1 wrote:
Is it even possible to achieve 9800/12800 ISO? I mean, ISO 6400 is pretty much the max for ANY film camera. With a 1V, to get ISO 6400, you'd have to push ISO 3200 by a whole stop, and it's the max the 1V will go as far as pushing ISO speed. I'm talking about B&W negs., which has a lot more latitude (at least 3 stops) than digital. The resulting images from a pushed ISO 3200 neg. to 6400 in low light situations is a hit & miss. You would end up with some images that are barely usable. IMO at ISO 12800, it will produce unusable images and would be unfeasible to even try to accomplish without the aid of strobes & lower ISO settings. Also keep in mind that with digital, the more the MP & the higher ISO, the the worse the noise gets & the more the loss of the details. ...Show more →
When you're working with digital, it really doesn't matter what film's ISO limit is. The ISO limit for digital is a combination of the sensor, processing alogrithms and how much noise one is willing to accept.
When it comes to camera and RAW software development, often times the hardest part is developing a high performance high ISO processing algorithm and it gets exponentially harder and time consuming the higher you go with high gain/ISO settings. I wouldn't be surprized if Canon spent a good 6 months just working out the processing algorithm for the 1D3's ISO6400 processing.
mfoto wrote:
Vistek is at $5499, which sort of make my above post irrelevant but still about $1000 more if the $4000 US comes true
canadian prices are always higher. For some reason, there has been no adjustment for the exchange rate from when there was a $1.40 exchange rate diff. Basically, canon canada is hozing canadian consumers.
When I got my 1DIIN, it was $5400 in canada but i got it for $3899USD from B&H. At that time the exchange rate was around $1.12CDN for a USD$
Is it even possible to achieve 9800/12800 ISO? I mean, ISO 6400 is pretty much the max for ANY film camera. With a 1V, to get ISO 6400, you'd have to push ISO 3200 by a whole stop
The only thing limiting digital sensitivity is the engineering of the chip and the photons hitting the sensor. It's quantum mechanics and our ability to exploit the physics therein. If each sensor gets struck by a photon and records that accurately, while noise is zero, you would have iso sensitivity way way way beyond 12800. Film and digital are not the same. The amount of energy needed to flip a film grain is not the same as that required to register in a photo receptor. That is why we will continue to see great advancements in Signal to noise ratios in these cameras. There is no inherent chemistry holding us back any longer, only better programming, micro lens construction, on chip noise/heat...etc.
Linda, I think you are referring to me and I think I spelled it out pretty clearly when I said I could view the RAW file ... IN ZOOMBROWSER. What I can't do is get it out of the pos program and into PS. Supposedly dcraw can do it but I have no experience with that program. Thanks though.
Ahhh be careful my non chemically trained friend. Silver halide film chemistry actually allows for "photon multiplication" in effect, so film could have higher ISO's than digital sensors.
Ahhh be careful my non chemically trained friend. Silver halide film chemistry actually allows for "photon multiplication" in effect, so film could have higher ISO's than digital sensors.
I am trained. The exposure of film requires a minimum activation energy as dictated at a quantum level,
here is more from wikipedia because I don't feel like typing much:
Most films are affected by the physics of silver grain activation (which sets a minimum amount of light required to expose a single grain) and by the statistics of random grain activation by photons. The film requires a minimum amount of light before it begins to expose, and then responds by progressive darkening over a wide dynamic range of exposure until all of the grains are exposed and the film achieves (after development) its maximum optical density.
Over the active dynamic range of most films, the density of the developed film is proportional to the logarithm of the total amount of light to which the film was exposed, so the transmission coefficient of the developed film is proportional to a power of the reciprocal of the brightness of the original exposure. This is due to the statistics of grain activation: as the film becomes progressively more exposed, each incident photon is less likely to impact a still-unexposed grain, yielding the logarithmic behavior.
Likewise, if part of an image receives less than the beginning threshold level of exposure, which depends upon the film's sensitivity to light - or speed - the film there will have no appreciable image density, and will appear on the print as a featureless black.
Now digital sensors do not behave in this manner. There is theoretically no minimum activation energy to record at the photosite (beyond a single photon), only improvements toward this goal are very difficult to achieve because of the on chip noise on the CMOS/CCD circuit and acompanying hardware. Digital sensors also do not have the same problems with saturation of the photosite if tricks like sampling a pixel multiple times during an exposure are used you can avoid issues of logarithmic decay of your transmission coefficient while still retaining dynamic range.
It is possible to detect a single photon, but it requires a big ol' vacuum tube currently. We shall see what the future holds, I find it far more promising than film.
Re-printed below, with Dave's permission, a brief excerpt from a private exchange between myself and Dave Etchells of Imaging Resource.
I had asked quite specifically about the comparable focus-accuracy potential of the live-view vs. the viewfinder. Dave carefully appraised this issue, using the pre-production sample he has been reviewing.
Bear in mind that the production models may vary somewhat from Dave's sample, but I would expect this particular focus issue observation to hold true.
The pertinent section of our communication :
Dave wrote:
>>Playing with our eval sample, you *can* scroll the 5/10x magnified view *anywhere in the frame*! Pretty cool, and it *definitely* gives you enough resolution to focus effectively. (In fact, with the 100mm macro attached, I had a hard time adjusting the focus finely enough manually to get the image really sharp, it would go totally in or out of focus with what felt like 1/16 or 1/32 of an inch of rotation on the barrel.)
Larry wrote:
>Excellent. I like the "*definitely*"!
>Am I safe in assuming that you feel the focus-ability re. this method is in-fact superior to viewfinder focus?
