Is that the same sensor that Sony A900 uses ?. Will they be able to retain their so called "IQ" with this sensor ?.
Derek Cookson wrote:
The D3X will use the 24 MP sensor that Sony has developed. It's talked about only a few posts up.
Also, a Nikon Photographer who I know has a pre-production model that is apparantly 33 MP, but it has no model name or indication of what it will be in the future. Possibly a D4?
He just told you why. I had already told you why. There are those of us who want it and can use it. If you don't and can't, that's fine for you. But don't presume that your needs are the only needs the industry should satisfy.
The maximal needed Pixelresolution printsize is depending of the viewing distance.
In my experience, viewing audiences will tend to move within normal reading distance of a photograph unless they are physically restrained. People expect a photograph to reveal more and more detail as they move closer, so in the course of fully enjoying a photograph that catches their attention, they will move closer to see the detail they expect. This is especially true of landscapes.
Mel Gross wrote:
I wish there WAS a split image screen for the 5D, that's the problem, there isn't.
Brightscreen did make their split screen for the 5D; I know because I bought one. It did not provide accurate focusing. I just looked at their website, and I see this screen is no longer available for the 5D. I think they gave up, too.
stanj wrote:
I think your math is a bit flawed. The current 1Ds3 raw file is ~30MB on a fat day. So that would be 15 times as much, 450MB. Even if we go 16 bit instead of 14 bit, we won't get past half a gigabyte. Still insane, agreed, but less than 1/3 of what you said.
Back in the 80s I had a 20MB hard drive, and it took several hours to read all the bytes from that disk. Today, my 1Ds3 would fill that drive in 1/5s, and overflow it. So I think it's all relative...
He was talking about a 40x60" at the Epson inkjet's native resolution of 360ppi.
Is there anyone who has any clarification as to wheter you can control the aperture in movie mode?
In the manual it says that you do not have any control over aperture, shutter speed or ISO during filming but according to Vincent Laforet you do have control over aperture.
"..there is TOTAL control of Aperture - period. It’s called Aperture priority mode - you set it - the camera does the rest. Program mode, and shutter speed mode are different modes. Just wanted to lay this to rest. I set my cameras to either 2.0 or 2.8 for the almost the entire shoot - and the aperture never changed. We shot it in bright daylight - and that time I set it to 4.0 - and it stayed there."
vectrex wrote:
Is there anyone who has any clarification as to wheter you can control the aperture in movie mode?
In the manual it says that you do not have any control over aperture, shutter speed or ISO during filming but according to Vincent Laforet you do have control over aperture.
"..there is TOTAL control of Aperture - period. It’s called Aperture priority mode - you set it - the camera does the rest. Program mode, and shutter speed mode are different modes. Just wanted to lay this to rest. I set my cameras to either 2.0 or 2.8 for the almost the entire shoot - and the aperture never changed. We shot it in bright daylight - and that time I set it to 4.0 - and it stayed there."
The manual is not very clear in this regard....Show more →
Someone in a Swedish forum contacted Canon USA with the above question and got this as an answer:
When shooting a video with the EOS 5D Mark II, the aperture that is set on the camera by you or the camera itself before recording starts, will be locked in once recording has started. The manual is only saying that the aperture, ISO speed and shutter speed are chosen by the camera automatically when shooting a still during a video recording. Since the aperture must remain the same as it was, the aperture that is used for the still image will remain locked on the original setting used when the video started recording.
So it seem that Vincent Laforet was right, and I am happy!
headroom wrote:
The maximal needed Pixelresolution printsize is depending of the viewing distance.
If you print really big ( posters int the street) 10-25 dpi are enough. If you have 10 ore more Mio pixels
ist very easy to uprez with good software. Not with the bicubic interpolation in Photoshop.
That's a theory that only works with billboards that are too far away to move closer to.
We're not certain about what the range of exposure controls on the 5D Mark II in video mode will be, though a few things are clear: shutter speed will be set automatically (between 1/30 and 1/125), any lens aperture can be selected, brightness can be locked prior to the commencement of video capture, or brightness can be controlled automatically by the camera. What facility there will be for adjusting exposure during recording, if any, we don't know. Nor have we been able to find out whether Canon has implemented the camera's automatic brightness control in a way that avoids the flickering brightness effect that shows up in some Nikon D90 video clips (and which disappears completely with that camera by locking the exposure)....Show more →
vectrex wrote:
Someone in a Swedish forum contacted Canon USA with the above question and got this as an answer:
When shooting a video with the EOS 5D Mark II, the aperture that is set on the camera by you or the camera itself before recording starts, will be locked in once recording has started. The manual is only saying that the aperture, ISO speed and shutter speed are chosen by the camera automatically when shooting a still during a video recording. Since the aperture must remain the same as it was, the aperture that is used for the still image will remain locked on the original setting used when the video started recording.
So it seem that Vincent Laforet was right, and I am happy!...Show more →
I was thinking about the whole SRaw topic for the new 5DII where the file should be the equivalent of a 10MP camera/sensor. Could the IQ of the SRaw file be similar to a 1DIII file? While I know it's strictly theoretical as the camera is not available yet, bu what do people think?
RDKirk wrote: Pretty much true. I'm still using Microsoft Office 2000. Why? Because no later version has given me anything I need, and in fact, the later versions take away things I need. I usually keep my automobiles for 15 years or more for the same reason. I've had the same wife for over twenty years.
The car thing is understandable, but it's time to upgrade the wife. Maybe a 25 year-old Wife Mark II.
george malamis wrote:
I was thinking about the whole SRaw topic for the new 5DII where the file should be the equivalent of a 10MP camera/sensor. Could the IQ of the SRaw file be similar to a 1DIII file? While I know it's strictly theoretical as the camera is not available yet, bu what do people think?
Considering all of the improvements in sensor technology, on camera chip technology, noise reduction technology, and the much better software RAW converters, the IQ should be better, if anything.
The IQ from my now obsolete (cry) 5D is better than the old 1Ds mkI. The quality from that camera was better than the 1D cameras.
I would think that the IQ would be at least equal. to the 1D mkIII, likely somewhat better.
Mel Gross wrote:
That's a theory that only works with billboards that are too far away to move closer to.
In reality, most people do pixel peep.
[/quote
]
No it`s a rule s for all. Smaller prints needs more dpi 300-600. Long Size 24 inch needs 235 -300 dpi
35 Inch 180-235 dpi. 52 inch 150 dpi. I do Digital Finart Printing with HP 3800 (54 Zoll) and HP 130 (24 Zoll) Its logic when you go closer to the picture that the resolution will go down. With analog film you see the grain as the limited factor. But when I upsample with Photo Zoom Pro 30 MB for 54 ich printing you dont see jaggies, wich are the distracting element. I als have a Scanback with 155 Mio Pixels not Bayerfilter wich gives 260 MB files I print them up to 120 Inch ( long size) without Interpolation. ...Show more →
headroom wrote:
That's very interesting. But at my lab, my customers wanted at least 300 dpi regardless. I can easily see the difference between a rezzed up file and one in the original size when printed up large. Higher rez images simply are sharper.
Even when printing from my Fuji Pictography at 12 x 18, we always went to 400 dpi, and used the highest rez the original had. We could see the difference easily. We could also see it when printing on that, at the other dpi setting of 270. nowhere as sharp.
While you may not see jaggies, you don't have the detail either. For most people, going more than about twice the rez (four times the file size), gives a disturbing look to the image. The edges are sharp, but enlarged areas have no detail. It's disturbing to see sharp edges with no detail between them. The mind knows that something is wrong with that.
Mel Gross. how does the ipf canon large format printers fit into this scene? they have a native 600dpi resolution and can print unconverted 16 bit RAW file(s). i do not have a good understanding of dpi vs. print size. i just set the thing @ 600dpi and print every thing that way. if there is an advantage to lowering the dpi to improve print quality my ears are open.
That's a theory that only works with billboards that are too far away to move closer to. In reality, most people do pixel peep.
I wouldn't call it "pixel peeping," but for sure unless physically restrained, viewing audiences will get as close to a photograph as possible--up to reading distance--regardless of the size of the image.
"Rules" about viewing distance and image sizes are nice to talk about, but if you tell a gallery goer that he's required to stand X-distance from a picture, he's likely to say, "Rules? I don' need no steenkin' rules!"
While you may not see jaggies, you don't have the detail either. For most people, going more than about twice the rez (four times the file size), gives a disturbing look to the image. The edges are sharp, but enlarged areas have no detail. It's disturbing to see sharp edges with no detail between them. The mind knows that something is wrong with that.
Which is why landscape photographers still use the largest formats they can afford. Landscapes--because of the fact that audiences get as close as possible and expect to see more and more detail unfold as they move closer--have practically infinite resolution requirements. You can't get "too sharp" for a landscape.
Fortunately, portraits do not. People expect facial hair to be resolved in a portrait (when the face is enlarged enough for them to expect to see it--about 2-3 inches tall and greater), and that's about as much detail as they care to see in a portrait at any distance.
Even more fortunately, hair is easy to upsample--it's just dark lines. If the original image resolves the facial hair, it can be upsampled successfully to nearly any size and audiences will be perfectly happy with it. No, they won't see skin flakes and hair mites...but they didn't want to.
