Color ,color ,color
I want to know if you see a big deference between colors a 1Ds mark II 12 bit , and a 14 bit on the new 1Ds Mark III
Thanks for your help
Yes, there's a difference, but the difference is not because of the two bits. To date I have to see a photo where I would hit me: "yeah, of course, this is something the old camera could not do because it was missing the 2 bits".
I know all the theory behind it, all that I am saying is that I have yet to see it in practice. It's like the 165mph top speed of my car. I am sure it's there.
stanj wrote:
Yes, there's a difference, but the difference is not because of the two bits. To date I have to see a photo where I would hit me: "yeah, of course, this is something the old camera could not do because it was missing the 2 bits".
I know all the theory behind it, all that I am saying is that I have yet to see it in practice. It's like the 165mph top speed of my car. I am sure it's there.
I know the Mark II its a very good camera
2 bit of color, its a big deference, Specially if you working with a verity of colors
I believe 14bit = 2^14 = 16384 and 12bit = 2^12 = 4096
That is a big deference
epphoto wrote:
I know the Mark II its a very good camera
2 bit of color, its a big deference, Specially if you working with a verity of colors
I believe 14bit = 2^14 = 16384 and 12bit = 2^12 = 4096
That is a big deference
I am not disputing the goodness of either camera - I put 100k+ clicks on my 1Ds2, and my 1Ds3 has now 67k clicks. So I do have a little bit of first hand experience with both. Also, a few people here know what I do for a living and that I know what the two bits stand for, beyond the obvious math.
That doesn't change the fact that I can't see the difference of the two bits, outside of a laboratory experiment which is even more obscure than the frequently practiced pixel peeping. If I were to name 10, even 20 differences between the two cameras, rest assured the 2 bits would not make the list.
epphoto wrote:
I know the Mark II its a very good camera
2 bit of color, its a big deference, Specially if you working with a verity of colors
I believe 14bit = 2^14 = 16384 and 12bit = 2^12 = 4096
That is a big deference
I think Stan is quite aware of the difference in theory. His point (and I agree) is that we have yet to see anyone post an image captured with a 14-bit camera with any noticeable improvement that can be attributed to the 2 extra bits. Over a year ago Pondria started a thread here asking for exactly that and no one was able to post an image to actually show any real world advantage from those 2 bits.
thedigitalbean wrote:
I think Stan is quite aware of the difference in theory. His point (and I agree) is that we have yet to see anyone post an image captured with a 14-bit camera with any noticeable improvement that can be attributed to the 2 extra bits. Over a year ago Pondria started a thread here asking for exactly that and no one was able to post an image to actually show any real world advantage from those 2 bits.
Stanj is right and we don't see much differences in our platform ( raw converter + printer + web + display - most are based on sRGB ) anyway. However; we can use 14bits camera to reserve the data for future application.
I haven't seen any specific evidence of the 14 bit as far as the color is concerned. I do know that the files are more tweakable than the 1DsII, and the shadow noise is significantly less. I don't know if this is attributed to the 14 bit processing, or something else. In any case, I like it.
stanj wrote:
I am not disputing the goodness of either camera - I put 100k+ clicks on my 1Ds2, and my 1Ds3 has now 67k clicks. So I do have a little bit of first hand experience with both. Also, a few people here know what I do for a living and that I know what the two bits stand for, beyond the obvious math.
That doesn't change the fact that I can't see the difference of the two bits, outside of a laboratory experiment which is even more obscure than the frequently practiced pixel peeping. If I were to name 10, even 20 differences between the two cameras, rest assured the 2 bits would not make the list.
I thing my question was very easy , but I did not understand your 1st reply
I'm Greek and some times you have to explain it to me a litle nicer to get it ,
I don't know you, and i don't know what you do for a living
you can please let me know ?? this way i will make sure to know you for the next time
epphoto wrote:
I thing my question was very easy , but I did not understand your 1st reply
I'm Greek and some times you have to explain it to me a litle nicer to get it ,
I don't know you, and i don't know what you do for a living
you can please let me know ?? this way i will make sure to know you for the next time
My first response was pretty simple, too, I think: there is a difference in color, and no I don't think it's due to the two extra bits. I am not sure which part is ambiguous...
thedigitalbean wrote:
... Over a year ago Pondria started a thread here asking for exactly that and no one was able to post an image to actually show any real world advantage from those 2 bits.
Here is the original thread. Please be warned before you click. It may take a weekend to read through. [Click...]
One of the things that we learnt, after working with the RAW data, then was that the data processing pipe line was pretty long and opaque. The 12bit or 14bit data representation, as we see with the raw converters ( Histogram, cliping warning etc ), come in the late stage. The early stage raw ADC data don't span the entire 12 bit or 14 bit range. Only the 9 bits (1Ds3) or 11 bits (1Ds2) are utilized. Yes, 1Ds2 has more bits utilized. http://www.sesee.com/Photo/Exports/1D3-raw.gif
Regarding colors, what makes the colors is simply the combination of the materials of the Color Filter Array and the Profile used by the specific RAW converter. Any small setting change in your raw converter will have greater impact on the colors than the extra 2 bits. Oh by the way, those are all minor effects comparing to your ambient lighting and the monitor calibration
try to find a photo lab or a printer where you'll notice the two bits... you might notice on a high-end LCD monitor, if you're looking for the difference...
I don't have a 1DsIII, but the color improved on all canon cameras from the 40D forward. I expect it has little to do with 14bits. It's a refinement in many areas of processing that now has 14 bits of significant "digits".
Brent said:
"Regarding the 14 bits, I was told that it wasn't a true 14 bit, but an interpolated 14 bit from 12 bit.
This came from a medium format digital rep. "
From how the Nikon and Canon explained their technologies, this seems to be true on Nikon, but not Canon.
The flip side is that most/allmedium format is not 16 bit, but 14 bit. So that was perhaps a "preemptive strike". I'm not saying MF doesn't have better tonality than 35FF.
dcmiller wrote:
I don't have a 1DsIII, but the color improved on all canon cameras from the 40D forward. I expect it has little to do with 14bits. It's a refinement in many areas of processing that now has 14 bits of significant "digits".
Brent said:
"Regarding the 14 bits, I was told that it wasn't a true 14 bit, but an interpolated 14 bit from 12 bit.
This came from a medium format digital rep. "
From how the Nikon and Canon explained their technologies, this seems to be true on Nikon, but not Canon.
The flip side is that most/allmedium format is not 16 bit, but 14 bit. So that was perhaps a "preemptive strike". I'm not saying MF doesn't have better tonality than 35FF. ...Show more →
All the backs I know of are 16bit, which ones aren't?
