Re: For Rich and his fans.
NameHere
wrote:
>On Feb 2, 2:14�am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> RichA �<rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 1, 6:48�am, Henry <theei...@not.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>http://www.dantestella.com/technical/lightcheap.html
>>
>> >The unsupported conclusions in that list are pure B.S. �Case in point,
>> >plastic lens mounts. �Not only do they have their mount flanges break,
>>
>> Rich is an arrogant asshole who thinks that everybody should live by
>> HIS standards of suitability.
>
>No, you can buy any camera you like. I only hope people capable of
>using good cameras get good cameras.
>
People capable of using good cameras are just as capable with lesser
cameras. If someone hands me an Instamatic-126 camera because that's all
they have, I'll still be able to return to them a photo from that camera
worthy of framing for anyone's wall. Nor will I look down my nose at them
for not providing me with better equipment. Because I know how to get an
exceptional photo out of any camera capable of creating an image. There are
no bad cameras. There are only bad photographers.
A Master Chef can create a culinary masterpiece using any cooking method at
their disposal. Ever been to a good luau? Hot rocks, leaves, and sand are
all that's needed for cooking utensils. In the right hands and minds that
is all the equipment that is needed to create a meal that you'll never
forget. It's not the cooking equipment, it's the chef. It's not the camera,
it's the photographer.
You and all like you have learned absolutely nothing, and your perpetual
display of this only proves that you and all like you are incapable of ever
learning anything.
I can guarantee you only one thing: You'll NEVER NEVER NEVER be worthwhile
photographers because you have convinced yourselves that its the camera's
fault or success.
I pity you.
Dave Cohen
Please don't. Most of us find accepting pity from anonymous posters
provides little comfort, particularly when the poster is obviously a
self centered obnoxious idiot.
NameHere
>Well put.
>
And yet it doesn't refute what was stated, not one bit. It must feel pretty
bad to now know why you'll never be a photographer of any sort, probably
not even much of a lowly snapshooter either. But I suspect, deep down
inside, that all of you already knew this about yourselves. It's why you
painstakingly go through the motions of always blaming your cameras in news
groups. Advertising to the world just what pathetic losers you are in the
world of photography. There can be no other reason.
Do continue to prove it to the world.....
Ofnuts
> And yet it doesn't refute what was stated, not one bit.
Because what you say is irrefutable. Any of us can also boast that he
can make the best photos in the world, and then refuse to show any to
prove it. You are on the same stand as religious miracles. Either we
believe, or we don't. Practical evidence is that there is no gain in
believing in the Holy P&S of Antioche, or in His Prophet, since His ways
are unfathomable and the Brand and Model of the Holy P&S that blows thy
enemy's DSLR to tiny bits shall be kept secret. So far NameHereism
hasn't gathered many followers, because even though there are plenty of
gullible people on this planet, they still want to see something (read:
a hint that God has some interest in them). But we are more likely to
see proof of extraterrestrial intelligence than a picture from the Holy
P&S or the Prophet, let alone a good one.
--
Bertrand, agnostic
NameHere
wrote:
That's because you and your kind are the most lost of all.
"There are none so lost as those who follow."
Think about it. I'm sure you have the time. You probably don't have the
mental acuity to comprehend that, but you most certainly have the time.
Only DSLR proponents are followers. They can never think for themselves.
Even worse, they doubt their choices so much that they don't feel
vindicated unless they can convince everyone else to believe as they
believe and make the same camera purchasing mistakes that they make in
life. The greater their insistence to have others buy DSLRs the more they
show their insecurity in their own decision to do so. Just like those who
doubt their religions the most, always being the most vocal about wanting
others to believe as they do. Because if they can convince someone else,
then perhaps they can stop doubting their own beliefs so much. It's that
simple.
Further, there is no need to prove anything to the likes of you. True
professionals who have used all manner of cameras discover what I said all
on their own. They already know these things of which I speak. I'm just
letting you know how true professionals think. You, on the other hand, are
revealing to the whole world your thoughts of a snapshooting,
blind-following, DSLR-preaching, insecure fool.
Go ahead, prove it some more. It's fun watching you fools continue to do
so.
BD
> blind-following, DSLR-preaching, insecure fool.
I'd like to find a P&S that allows the use of remote slave flashes for
better control of subject lighting.
And that allows for apertures wider than f/4.
And supports the use of RAW files for post-adjustment as necessary.
And supports continuous focus for tracking of moving subject in burst
mode.
Oh... and that *has* a burst mode to speak of.
Can you name a P&S that does all these things?
... cue Jeopardy music...
NameHere
>
>> blind-following, DSLR-preaching, insecure fool.
>
>I'd like to find a P&S that allows the use of remote slave flashes for
>better control of subject lighting.
They all can.
>
>And that allows for apertures wider than f/4.
Most do. Some zoom models have apertures as much as f/2.0. You've clearly
never even bothered to look for yourself.
>
>And supports the use of RAW files for post-adjustment as necessary.
Many do, but mostly its not necessary. Because the RAW to JPG conversion is
done properly in the camera in the first place. RAW is only for people who
can't expose their images properly in the first place.
>
>And supports continuous focus for tracking of moving subject in burst
>mode.
Some of them do. But since you're a machine-gunning snapshooter I suggest
you stay with an auto-everything P&S DSLR because your camera requirements
prove that you're not capable of using any camera in full manual modes.
>
>Oh... and that *has* a burst mode to speak of.
Many do, but those who use them professionally find little use for burst
modes except for special circumstances, like hand-held bracketing
sequences. Professionals know when to time their shots by knowing their
subjects. Usually just one click and the deed is done.
>
>
>Can you name a P&S that does all these things?
>
Yes, I can.
And so can you if you do your own simple homework.
BD
> Many do, but mostly its not necessary. Because the RAW to JPG conversion is
> done properly in the camera in the first place. RAW is only for people who
> can't expose their images properly in the first place.
That's like saying automatic transmissions exist for people who don't
know how to use a clutch. The technology's there, so use it. There's a
thin line between purist and luddite.
BD
> I pity you.
You're probably about 14 years old, and might have bought an Ansel
Adams book once.
Ofnuts
> Only DSLR proponents are followers. They can never think for themselves.
> Even worse, they doubt their choices so much that they don't feel
> vindicated unless they can convince everyone else to believe as they
> believe and make the same camera purchasing mistakes that they make in
> life. The greater their insistence to have others buy DSLRs the more they
> show their insecurity in their own decision to do so.
*woop* *woop* Ironymeter overload!!! Replace "DSLR" by "P&S" in the
sentence above and look in you mirror....
> Just like those who
> doubt their religions the most, always being the most vocal about wanting
> others to believe as they do. Because if they can convince someone else,
> then perhaps they can stop doubting their own beliefs so much. It's that
> simple.
So that explains why you spend so much time convincing us. Because if
you check this forum, you alone have spent more megabytes
boasting/trying to convince people of the superiority of P&S than any of
the assumed DSLR minions.
> Further, there is no need to prove anything to the likes of you. True
> professionals who have used all manner of cameras discover what I said all
> on their own. They already know these things of which I speak. I'm just
> letting you know how true professionals think.
Plenty of professionals (ie, people who get paid for their pictures) use
DSLRs. Of course you won't consider them as "true" professionnals
because they don't use a P&S. This is just a circular argument.
Thanks for the laugh.
--
Bertrand
DanP
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 17:22:59 -0800 (PST), BD <robert.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> blind-following, DSLR-preaching, insecure fool.
>
> >I'd like to find a P&S that allows the use of remote slave flashes for
> >better control of subject lighting.
>
> They all can.
I own a P&S Canon SX100 which can only use the built in flash.
>
>
> >And that allows for apertures wider than f/4.
>
> Most do. Some zoom models have apertures as much as f/2.0. You've clearly
> never even bothered to look for yourself.
Never seen one with f/2.0. And if there is it would be more expensive
than my Canon 500D with a 50mm f/1.8.
>
>
> >And supports the use of RAW files for post-adjustment as necessary.
>
> Many do, but mostly its not necessary. Because the RAW to JPG conversion is
> done properly in the camera in the first place. RAW is only for people who
> can't expose their images properly in the first place.
>
Try making a HDR from a single exposure. With RAW it is posible.
Or try to compress the levels from a JPG.
> >And supports continuous focus for tracking of moving subject in burst
> >mode.
>
> Some of them do. But since you're a machine-gunning snapshooter I suggest
> you stay with an auto-everything P&S DSLR because your camera requirements
> prove that you're not capable of using any camera in full manual modes.
>
You are deluded if you think the shooting rate of a P&S can come close
to a DSLR one.
> >Oh... and that *has* a burst mode to speak of.
>
> Many do, but those who use them professionally find little use for burst
> modes except for special circumstances, like hand-held bracketing
> sequences. Professionals know when to time their shots by knowing their
> subjects. Usually just one click and the deed is done.
Never seen a pro without a DSLR.
But if you want to taka a stab do this http://www.flickr.com/photos/danpetre/4196700817/
with a P&S, preferably in one click.
>
> >Can you name a P&S that does all these things?
>
> Yes, I can.
>
> And so can you if you do your own simple homework.
I call you a liar, you cannot.
DanP
bugbear
> Try making a HDR from a single exposure. With RAW it is posible.
RAW just expresses what the sensor captured.
Surely that implies the sensor is inherently HDR;
Fuji's SR (and successors) is the only one I know of.
Applying tonemapping to a RAW is NOT HDR.
BugBear
NameHere
wrote:
>On Feb 3, 1:39�am, NameHere <w...@address.info> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 17:22:59 -0800 (PST), BD <robert.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> blind-following, DSLR-preaching, insecure fool.
>>
>> >I'd like to find a P&S that allows the use of remote slave flashes for
>> >better control of subject lighting.
>>
>> They all can.
>
>I own a P&S Canon SX100 which can only use the built in flash.
You're not too bright, are you. But then that's to be expected of everyone
who has their head stuck in their DSLR-hole.
>
>>
>>
>> >And that allows for apertures wider than f/4.
>>
>> Most do. Some zoom models have apertures as much as f/2.0. You've clearly
>> never even bothered to look for yourself.
>
>
>Never seen one with f/2.0. And if there is it would be more expensive
>than my Canon 500D with a 50mm f/1.8.
>
Of course you've never seen one because you've never bothered to look for
one. You have your head stuck in your DSLR-hole. If you had ever looked
you'd find out they can be bought for less than that 50mm f1.8 lens itself.
Doing a quick check online just now I find some used P&S cameras with f/2.0
zoom lenses going for $50 to $200. Excellent cameras btw.
>>
>>
>> >And supports the use of RAW files for post-adjustment as necessary.
>>
>> Many do, but mostly its not necessary. Because the RAW to JPG conversion is
>> done properly in the camera in the first place. RAW is only for people who
>> can't expose their images properly in the first place.
>>
>
>Try making a HDR from a single exposure. With RAW it is posible.
>Or try to compress the levels from a JPG.
Yet I've never seen even one HDR image that looks right, from any camera.
You have more dynamic range with any digital camera than you've ever had
with film for the last century. HDR is so overrated and useless. But then,
many P&S cameras provide RAW data, so your complaint is moot.
>
>> >And supports continuous focus for tracking of moving subject in burst
>> >mode.
>>
>> Some of them do. But since you're a machine-gunning snapshooter I suggest
>> you stay with an auto-everything P&S DSLR because your camera requirements
>> prove that you're not capable of using any camera in full manual modes.
>>
>
>You are deluded if you think the shooting rate of a P&S can come close
>to a DSLR one.
I guess a continuous 10 fps at full-frame size isn't fast enough for a
machine-gunning snapshooter like yourself.
>
>> >Oh... and that *has* a burst mode to speak of.
>>
>> Many do, but those who use them professionally find little use for burst
>> modes except for special circumstances, like hand-held bracketing
>> sequences. Professionals know when to time their shots by knowing their
>> subjects. Usually just one click and the deed is done.
>
>
>Never seen a pro without a DSLR.
>But if you want to taka a stab do this http://www.flickr.com/photos/danpetre/4196700817/
>with a P&S, preferably in one click.
>
That example is not good enough. Many P&S cameras have shutter speeds up to
1/40,000th of a second, and that includes full-frame flash-sync if needed.
Your image is less than child's-play in the hands of someone who knows what
they are doing with a good P&S camera. Plus there's no shape-distortion of
fast moving subjects by having to use an archaically slow focal-plane
shutter with all its inherent drawbacks.
Focal-plane shutter distortion example:
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
>>
>> >Can you name a P&S that does all these things?
>>
>> Yes, I can.
>>
>> And so can you if you do your own simple homework.
>
>I call you a liar, you cannot.
>
Call me anything you want. I could care less. It's not going to change
reality and facts.
NameHere
wrote:
>On 03/02/2010 01:57, NameHere wrote:
>
>> Only DSLR proponents are followers. They can never think for themselves.
>> Even worse, they doubt their choices so much that they don't feel
>> vindicated unless they can convince everyone else to believe as they
>> believe and make the same camera purchasing mistakes that they make in
>> life. The greater their insistence to have others buy DSLRs the more they
>> show their insecurity in their own decision to do so.
>
>*woop* *woop* Ironymeter overload!!! Replace "DSLR" by "P&S" in the
>sentence above and look in you mirror....
>
>> Just like those who
>> doubt their religions the most, always being the most vocal about wanting
>> others to believe as they do. Because if they can convince someone else,
>> then perhaps they can stop doubting their own beliefs so much. It's that
>> simple.
>
>So that explains why you spend so much time convincing us. Because if
>you check this forum, you alone have spent more megabytes
>boasting/trying to convince people of the superiority of P&S than any of
>the assumed DSLR minions.
I do no such thing. I merely state the facts every time a DSLR-worshipper
is deriding all other cameras. You don't read and comprehend very clearly
do you. But then that's to be expected of anyone who has their mind engaged
in blind-worship. Put some more blinders on. I don't think you've
brainwashed yourself enough.
NameHere
wrote:
>
>
>Never seen a pro without a DSLR.
>But if you want to taka a stab do this http://www.flickr.com/photos/danpetre/4196700817/
>with a P&S, preferably in one click.
Here's something a little more challenging for your child's-level and
focal-plane-shutter-crippled DSLR. Physicists doing studies of magnetic
reconnection in helium plasma at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
using a "lowly" Canon Powershot A700 with CHDK's ultra-fast 1/40,000 of a
second shutter speeds. It's rather impressive.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3191/3014649023_ec609452ba_o.jpg
You can't use flash to stop an illuminated subject's motion. Only a fast
shutter-speed can provide the images they need. A DSLR is useless to
them--just as DSLRs are useless for many professionals who have found that
fact out on their own for all manner of subjects. They don't sit around
listening to DSLR-Trolls in news-groups. They're independent adults, they
think for themselves.
Here's a couple of other fun ones of someone playing around with a BIC
lighter and using ultra-high shutter speeds in P&S cameras. Neither of
which can be done by using flash to stop the motion.
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images/e/ee/Bic1.jpg
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images/8/87/Bic2.jpg
The most interesting thing of all, when taking images of very fast moving
subjects you can preview those shutter speeds in real-time in the EVF
before you've even tripped the shutter. When taking images of a
Dremel-drill grinding-wheel rotating at 30,000 rpm, you can see the image
stopped in real-time as if you had used a high-speed flash, right in the
viewfinder without even taking a picture first to see what's happening.
It's quite amazing the first time you experience this. Your camera's
shutter and electronic viewfinder acting as an ultra-high-speed strobe
without any bright flashing strobe lights.
Sorry, but yours and all others' DSLRs lose big-time if you are going to
use shutter-speeds as any kind of selling point. It also proves how very
useless those optical viewfinders can be in many situations.
Thanks for bringing this up. I'm sure that many people were unaware of just
how crippled their DSLRs truly are when compared to many other more
inexpensive and more powerful P&S cameras.
Michael Vogel
BD wrote:
> I'd like to find a P&S that allows the use of remote slave flashes for
> better control of subject lighting.
Here's one: Canon PowerShot A590IS. I use it on full manual, which
disables the pre-flash so I can use a cheap optical slave-trigger. Works
fine.
> And that allows for apertures wider than f/4.
The A590 goes down to f/2.6.
> And supports the use of RAW files for post-adjustment as necessary.
By using CHDK, I'm able to shoot RAW - altough it not that much of use
on a P&S.
> And supports continuous focus for tracking of moving subject in burst
> mode.
>
> Oh... and that *has* a burst mode to speak of.
Well, you got me here. OMG! A P&S without focus tracking and slower than
10fps. How could they possibly dare to sell something like this for as
much as 170 bucks new?!? (<- irony)
> Can you name a P&S that does all these things?
Btw.: Can YOU name a DSLR, that one can easily shove into one's pocket
(jacket, not trousers), weights under 250g (with lens)
and costs under 170$ new? ;-)
cu
Michael
Chris Malcolm
> DanP wrote:
>> Try making a HDR from a single exposure. With RAW it is posible.
> RAW just expresses what the sensor captured.
> Surely that implies the sensor is inherently HDR;
All it implies is that the RAW file covers a significantly wider
dynamic range than can be expressed in a jpeg image. Which is in fact
the case for most image sensors these days.
--
Chris Malcolm
NameHere
Not true at all.
What you perceive as the RAW containing more dynamic range is just your
camera's failure to do a proper RAW to JPG conversion internally. It has
nothing to do with the sensor, it has to do with how the data from the
sensor is converted into useful files. If a value of 0 from a sensor's
photosite is converted to 0 in the JPG file, and a value of 1024, 4096, or
16384 (10 to 14 bit dependent) from a photosite is converted to a value of
255 in the JPG file, then the JPG file represents the whole dynamic range.
No more than that is required for printing and display purposes.
Learn to buy cameras where the RAW to JPG conversion is done properly in
the camera and you'll discover why people are tearing their hair out over
RAW and religiously claiming the useless virtues of RAW data. RAW files
aren't required nor needed from cameras that are programmed properly in the
first place. The only time RAW is needed is due to poorly programmed
cameras and piss-poor snapshooters that don't know how to properly expose
their images nor use their cameras properly.
Ofnuts
You naughty boy, you just blew again my just repaired ironymeter.
--
Bertrand
Chris Malcolm
> Not true at all.
Your photographs show clearly how much you know about dynamic range :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
Paul Furman
> the insufferable troll wrote:
>> BD wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to find a P&S that allows the use of remote slave flashes for
>>> better control of subject lighting.
>>
>> They all can.
>
> I own a P&S Canon SX100 which can only use the built in flash.
Remote flashes can be triggered by flash, right? No TTL metering though.
> Never seen one with f/2.0. And if there is it would be more expensive
> than my Canon 500D with a 50mm f/1.8.
Similar, with much more zoom & less high ISO performance.
> But if you want to taka a stab do this http://www.flickr.com/photos/danpetre/4196700817/
ISO 800 1/4000 sec f/8.0 28mm eq.
Interesting perspective, I like that you did it with no flash.
I met a guy doing travel photography, trying to make a living at it &
managing OK from what I could tell. He used a P&S because he liked to
travel obscure places in India & be unobtrusive. He had lots of nice
work. Anything is possible. There are billions of stunning photos out
there that a cell phone could capture.
NameHere
Your comments clearly show how little you understand the full spectrum of
conversions from analog sensor data to useful image. Theorize all you want,
your image never needs to have any color bit-depth-path greater than your
weakest link. At most, only double the color-bit-depth of your printer or
display. That makes only 10-bit sensor-data more than necessary. If
properly converted to a final JPG file in-camera, then that's all the
bit-depth that's required from any camera for anyone.
Show me, or anyone, why a camera should be less capable of doing the proper
RAW to JPG conversion than what anyone can do with the same data outside of
the camera for the same final printing or display purposes. Nothing that
any of you have stated has made any sense whatsoever. It's okay if you use
external software on the RAW to JPG conversion to obtain the full dynamic
range from the sensor, but your camera shouldn't be capable of that? You're
a fool if you believe that. All you are doing is trying to justify why your
cameras are so bad, why your talents as photographers are so bad, or why
you are more enthralled with playing with theoretical bits or playing
gear-head and tech-head than you are at being any kind of photographers.
Go ahead, dig yourself a deeper hole by showing how little you know about
the real world and real photography. It must be awfully cramped while
mentally-masturbating in that little theoretical space between your ears.
So far, all you've proved is what an inexperienced moron and troll that you
truly are.
BD
> I do no such thing. I merely state the facts every time a DSLR-worshipper
> is deriding all other cameras. You don't read and comprehend very clearly
The only derision I see her is coming from you.
Hypocrites. Gotta love 'em.
bugbear
The problem is not dynamic range. The problem is colour resolution.
Even one bit can represent an arbitrary dynamic range (0 = the black of space,
1 = the most powerful laser on the planet).
Clearly, this system is representing a wide dynamic range, but it has very little
resolution within that dynamic range.
Since JPEG only uses 8 bits, there can only be 256 levels. Raw has more bits
and can represent more levels - which may well mean more colour resolution.
BugBear
bugbear
> If a value of 0 from a sensor's
> photosite is converted to 0 in the JPG file, and a value of 1024, 4096, or
> 16384 (10 to 14 bit dependent) from a photosite is converted to a value of
> 255 in the JPG file, then the JPG file represents the whole dynamic range.
Agreed. However colour resolution may have been lost.
BugBear
DanP
> That example is not good enough. Many P&S cameras have shutter speeds up to
> 1/40,000th of a second, and that includes full-frame flash-sync if needed.
40,000th of a sec exposure is simply not physicaly possible.
CHDK may tell you such numbers but the camera's hardware will not do
it.
And if it was, what aperture and ISO would you use to see anything in
the shot?
DanP
DanP
> On 2/3/2010 5:00 AM, DanP wrote:
>
> > the insufferable troll wrote:
> >> BD wrote:
>
> >>> I'd like to find a P&S that allows the use of remote slave flashes for
> >>> better control of subject lighting.
>
> >> They all can.
>
> > I own a P&S Canon SX100 which can only use the built in flash.
>
> Remote flashes can be triggered by flash, right? No TTL metering though.
>
> > Never seen one with f/2.0. And if there is it would be more expensive
> > than my Canon 500D with a 50mm f/1.8.
>
> Similar, with much more zoom & less high ISO performance.
>
>
> ISO 800 1/4000 sec f/8.0 28mm eq.
> Interesting perspective, I like that you did it with no flash.
>
> I met a guy doing travel photography, trying to make a living at it &
> managing OK from what I could tell. He used a P&S because he liked to
> travel obscure places in India & be unobtrusive. He had lots of nice
> work. Anything is possible. There are billions of stunning photos out
> there that a cell phone could capture.
I agree, P&S have the advantage of being discreet and easy to carry. I
own one, it is a tool in the box.
Different circumsances call for different tools.
DanP
NameHere
And it won't do a lick of good if you can only present it in 6-bits worth
of resolution on your monitor or even less bit-depth on paper. Catching on
yet?
Bit-depth color resolution in sensors is a marketing ploy just as empty and
useless as the megapixel race. Unfortunately, all the "intelligent" DSLR
idiots think they are getting something more useful if they have a 14-bit
sensor. It's fun watching them get conned by their own snow-jobs. The ONLY
people who find it the least bit useful are those who are so inept at
photography that they require that vast amount of wiggle-room to try to
recover from their senseless snapshot disasters and poorly designed
cameras.
NameHere
wrote:
>On Feb 3, 4:17�pm, NameHere <w...@address.info> wrote:
Do tell. Why is it not physically possible? This I've GOT to hear.
Just because your mind is still stuck in last century's archaic focal-plane
shutter mentality doesn't mean that the rest of the world in this century
is still so crippled as that.
Have you done the tests with CHDK capable cameras? If not then you're just
another ignorant idiot troll. Not only is it possible it's done every day
by those who use CHDK supported cameras. A shame that you're so far out of
the loop of what is really going on for over 3 years now that you think
something this simple is impossible. Some owners of certain models of CHDK
capable cameras have even reported full-frame flash-sync as fast as
1/224,000th of a second exposures when tested properly. Lie to yourself and
all others as much you want. It's not going to change facts and reality.
Go crawl back under your bridge-of-ignorance-and-inexperience, troll.
bugbear
>
> And it won't do a lick of good if you can only present it in 6-bits worth
> of resolution on your monitor or even less bit-depth on paper.
You appear to be suggesting that prints only support 32 gray levels.
What are you using - 24 pin dot matrix?
AMD does 10 bit video cards - welcome to 2010.
Further, since processing involves arithmetic, which involves
rounding, having extra colour resolution prior to processing
is advantageous.
BugBear
DanP
> Learn to buy cameras where the RAW to JPG conversion is done properly in
> the camera and you'll discover why people are tearing their hair out over
> RAW and religiously claiming the useless virtues of RAW data. RAW files
> aren't required nor needed from cameras that are programmed properly in the
> first place. The only time RAW is needed is due to poorly programmed
> cameras and piss-poor snapshooters that don't know how to properly expose
> their images nor use their cameras properly.
There is no magic settings for converting the RAW to JPG.
Even P&S cameras have ways of adjusting the sharpness, contrast, white
ballance and colour hue, all manual.
You cannot claim to know the all right values before taking the shot,
and after you do you cannot see a proper image on the camera LCD.
After you see it on the computer is too late. Having the RAW gives you
the freedom to choose the settings that feel right for that shot.
DanP
NameHere
wrote:
>On Feb 3, 9:20�pm, NameHere <w...@address.info> wrote:
>
>> Learn to buy cameras where the RAW to JPG conversion is done properly in
>> the camera and you'll discover why people are tearing their hair out over
>> RAW and religiously claiming the useless virtues of RAW data. RAW files
>> aren't required nor needed from cameras that are programmed properly in the
>> first place. The only time RAW is needed is due to poorly programmed
>> cameras and piss-poor snapshooters that don't know how to properly expose
>> their images nor use their cameras properly.
>
>There is no magic settings for converting the RAW to JPG.
>Even P&S cameras have ways of adjusting the sharpness, contrast, white
>ballance and colour hue, all manual.
>You cannot claim to know the all right values before taking the shot,
>and after you do you cannot see a proper image on the camera LCD.
You're right, I don't see the proper image on the LCD or EVF *after* I have
taken the shot. I see the correct color balance and exposure on the LCD or
EVF *before* I take the shot. You've not used many, or any, decent cameras
have you. You've made that perfectly clear.
NameHere
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>NameHere wrote:
>>
>> And it won't do a lick of good if you can only present it in 6-bits worth
>> of resolution on your monitor or even less bit-depth on paper.
>
>You appear to be suggesting that prints only support 32 gray levels.
>What are you using - 24 pin dot matrix?
6-bits per each channel of CMYK. That's a 24-bit color depth resolution.
16,777,216 colors.
There's a good reason that people resort to Piezography for B&W prints.
Using various shades of gray inks to achieve more than 64 gray levels
without dithering. (6-bits is 64, not 32)
>
>AMD does 10 bit video cards - welcome to 2010.
All fine and dandy. Now tell me how many distinct hues your human eye can
discern faithfully.
>
>Further, since processing involves arithmetic, which involves
>rounding, having extra colour resolution prior to processing
>is advantageous.
>
> BugBear
This is why I said that 10-bit depth per sensor channel is more than is
needed for the final display. 12 and 14 bit camera sensors are nothing but
a marketing ploy that is directly targeted to major fools. Rarely do I need
to do much post-processing to images from my P&S cameras because I know how
to use them properly in the first place. They also do a fine job of
retaining the full dynamic range of the sensor in the JPG file to begin
with. I've compared the JPG and eventual RAW manipulated data. There's so
little difference between the two that it's difficult to best the JPG file
by starting with RAW. You can spend upwards of half an hour or more trying
to tweak anything extra out of the RAW sensor data. It's mostly a huge
waste of time because the camera's programming does it so well in the RAW
to JPG conversion to begin with. Those who have less capable cameras will
have to resort to post-processing the RAW data to fix what their camera
failed to deliver in the first place. Or, more commonly, what they as
snapshooters failed to do in the first place.
How difficult is this for you to comprehend? It seems to be frying your
brain so far.
NameHere
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>NameHere wrote:
>>
>> And it won't do a lick of good if you can only present it in 6-bits worth
>> of resolution on your monitor or even less bit-depth on paper.
>
>You appear to be suggesting that prints only support 32 gray levels.
>What are you using - 24 pin dot matrix?
6-bits per each channel of CMYK. That's a 24-bit color depth resolution.
16,777,216 colors.
There's a good reason that people resort to Piezography for B&W prints.
Using various shades of gray inks to achieve more than 64 gray levels
without unsightly dithering. (6-bits is 64, not 32)
>
>AMD does 10 bit video cards - welcome to 2010.
All fine and dandy. Now tell me how many distinct hues your human eye can
discern faithfully.
>
>Further, since processing involves arithmetic, which involves
>rounding, having extra colour resolution prior to processing
>is advantageous.
>
> BugBear
This is why I said that 10-bit depth per sensor channel is more than is
bugbear
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:38:59 +0000, bugbear
> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>
>> NameHere wrote:
>>> And it won't do a lick of good if you can only present it in 6-bits worth
>>> of resolution on your monitor or even less bit-depth on paper.
>> You appear to be suggesting that prints only support 32 gray levels.
>> What are you using - 24 pin dot matrix?
>
> 6-bits per each channel of CMYK. That's a 24-bit color depth resolution.
> 16,777,216 colors.
CMYK is a redundant colour space. It's equivalent (pace gamut concerns)
to RGB.
> There's a good reason that people resort to Piezography for B&W prints.
> Using various shades of gray inks to achieve more than 64 gray levels
> without dithering. (6-bits is 64, not 32)
Indeed. But you said "less bit-depth[than 6]" on paper.
5 is less than 6 (stop me if I'm going too fast for you)
>
>> AMD does 10 bit video cards - welcome to 2010.
>
> All fine and dandy. Now tell me how many distinct hues your human eye can
> discern faithfully.
The human eye is not a trivial light meter - with adaption
it can perceive a truly massive range of intensities.
>> Further, since processing involves arithmetic, which involves
>> rounding, having extra colour resolution prior to processing
>> is advantageous.
>>
>> BugBear
>
> This is why I said that 10-bit depth per sensor channel is more than is
> needed for the final display. 12 and 14 bit camera sensors are nothing but
> a marketing ploy that is directly targeted to major fools. Rarely do I need
> to do much post-processing to images from my P&S cameras because I know how
> to use them properly in the first place.
If you're happy for your images to printed as captured, that's dandy.
But if you're doing anything interesting, such as contrast curve
adjustment, or pananoramic stitching, you're STILL
going to want deeper data to allow a little room for intermediate
rounding errors.
> They also do a fine job of
> retaining the full dynamic range of the sensor in the JPG file to begin
> with.
This is trivial; here an alogorithm:
RAW 0 -> JEPG 0
RAW MAX -> JPEG MAX
You speak as if this is some kind of achievment.
> I've compared the JPG and eventual RAW manipulated data. There's so
> little difference between the two that it's difficult to best the JPG file
> by starting with RAW. You can spend upwards of half an hour or more trying
> to tweak anything extra out of the RAW sensor data. It's mostly a huge
> waste of time because the camera's programming does it so well in the RAW
> to JPG conversion to begin with. Those who have less capable cameras will
> have to resort to post-processing the RAW data to fix what their camera
> failed to deliver in the first place. Or, more commonly, what they as
> snapshooters failed to do in the first place.
>
> How difficult is this for you to comprehend? It seems to be frying your
> brain so far.
I seem to be comprehending more than you, and better too.
"There seems to be much confusion on the internet about the
relevance of image bit depth on recordable dynamic range."
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic-range.htm
Read and learn.
BugBear
bugbear
> I see the correct color balance and exposure on the LCD or
> EVF *before* I take the shot.
Since colour perception is dependant on ambient light,
I think you're full of shit.
BugBear
Ray Fischer
>NameHere wrote:
>>
>> And it won't do a lick of good if you can only present it in 6-bits worth
>> of resolution on your monitor or even less bit-depth on paper.
>
>You appear to be suggesting that prints only support 32 gray levels.
>What are you using - 24 pin dot matrix?
Do you believe that your printer can do more than 64 levels?
>AMD does 10 bit video cards - welcome to 2010.
Video cards are not monitors.
>Further, since processing involves arithmetic, which involves
>rounding, having extra colour resolution prior to processing
>is advantageous.
During processing it's useful. Afterward? Not so much.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Ray Fischer
>On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 02:20:36 -0800 (PST), DanP <dan....@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Feb 3, 4:17�pm, NameHere <w...@address.info> wrote:
>>
>>> That example is not good enough. Many P&S cameras have shutter speeds up to
>>> 1/40,000th of a second, and that includes full-frame flash-sync if needed.
>>
>>40,000th of a sec exposure is simply not physicaly possible.
>>CHDK may tell you such numbers but the camera's hardware will not do
>>it.
>>And if it was, what aperture and ISO would you use to see anything in
>>the shot?
>>
>>DanP
>
>Do tell. Why is it not physically possible? This I've GOT to hear.
>
>Just because your mind is still stuck in last century's archaic focal-plane
Just because YOU are a lying troll doesn't mean that everybody else
is stupid.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Paul Furman
I can't see someone routinely adjusting white balance, contrast &
saturation for each shot. I do that for focus stacking somewhat because
I don't want the huge raw files but for general photography there's no
way to really get a good look at things still you get home.
Of course it's possible to take nice photos with a canned jpeg output
from the camera but more flexibility is more flexibility.
I agree 14 bit is overkill. I played with it and could see no value.
LOL!
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>NameHere wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:38:59 +0000, bugbear
>> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>>
>
>> They also do a fine job of
>> retaining the full dynamic range of the sensor in the JPG file to begin
>> with.
>
>This is trivial; here an alogorithm:
>
>RAW 0 -> JEPG 0
>RAW MAX -> JPEG MAX
>
>You speak as if this is some kind of achievment.
Ask any DSLR owner who worships RAW and you'll find out that it is very
much some kind of major achievement. Apparently none of their cameras are
capable of something so simple. They're always clamouring how they get two
or more stops of dynamic range out of the RAW data compared to the JPG file
their camera can produce. Go ahead, ask them. They're even stupidly willing
to spend an extra $100-$200 for the required software needed to repair what
their camera's firmware failed to do correctly in the first place. Then on
top of that they waste even more valuable hours of their life trying to
correct all the errors from their camera's firmware on every snapshot they
take.
LOL!
NameHere
You can think anything you want, I could care less.
I can also use a dichroic enlarger and tune in a nearly exact 6500K color
temperature without looking at the settings nor having any external
references. Just a fun test for myself that I tried when curious about it
one day. One time I was offended by my phase-contrast microscope's incident
light-source being slightly too warm. So I found some finely graded colored
filtering materials (RoscoLux 144+ filter sampler pack) that I had laying
in a box and managed to fine-tune its lab-designed daylight-filter to
something more plausible by having to stack two different color-correction
filters in the light path. No color analysis tools required. I also wonder
why people are so needful of tools like the Spyder to adjust their color
workspace.
I pride myself on my color-memory but a friend's mother has me beat. She
can look at a swatch of cloth under nearly any lighting source (in fact she
never even considers this), go into a dressmaker's store a week later, and
come back with the exact same color even in another material and texture.
Something that even I think should be impossible. Some people are just
better at these sorts of things than others. Apparently you're not one of
them.
Though I do admit, this is why I prefer an EVF to an LCD for proper
white-balance and exposure whenever possible. It blocks out all external
influences and makes things far easier. Once you have trained your eye,
with enough use, to see how any particular camera's EVF is portraying the
resulting photo you can be well within 1/6th EV of exact exposure required
at all times without ever using any light-metering cues while in full
manual mode. Particularly helpful when having to pick the exact exposures
needed to retain the most colors in difficult to meter sunsets and
sunrises. Try it sometime. Turn off all automatic metering and use an EVF
display alone to choose your white-balance and exposure settings. You might
be surprised how well this works. This, of course, depends so much on your
own skills with any camera. It will also help to tune your camera's custom
settings to lowest contrast; and if it allows for RBG adjustments too, to
fine tune those so that the colors in your EVF exactly match, as near as
possible, the real scene. Not everything that you need to know how to do is
contained in that camera's manual--authored by tech-heads that have never
used these cameras in real-world situations.
DanP
> Have you done the tests with CHDK capable cameras? If not then you're just
> another ignorant idiot troll.
No, I have not done any speed test at the time i wrote my previous
messages.
But I just did now and I can tell you my SX100 with CHDK can not shoot
faster than 1/2500 sec, with or witout CHDK.
To do the test I set Manual control, maximum ISO (1600), maximum
aperture (f/2.8) and 1 sec exposure.
Then in the CHDK menu I have started shooting a lamp with the fastest
values I could pick, 1/100k, then went up 1/64k, 1/40k, 1/25k,
1/12500, 1/8000, 1/5000, 1/3200, 1/2500, the fastest speed the camera
can shoot witout CHDK, 1/2000, 1/500, 1/100.
From 1/100k to 1/2500 all look the same. From 1/2500 upwards I can
notice the shots becoming brighter.
I installed CHDK over 1 year ago and played with all the settings. I
have noticed long ago that taking the shutter speed to ridiculous
levels does not cause the camera to shoot that fast.
Having the manual exposure set to 1 sec in the camera manual mode and
seeing shots becoming brighter assures me CHDK exposure overide works
fine and I have set it correctly.
Since you can have CHDK only on Canon, and as you can see mine cannot
shoot faster than 1/2500 sec your original claim that most P&S can
shoot as fast as 1/80000 does not stand.
Since I am backing up my claims I invite you to do the same test and
disclose your results.
DanP
DanP
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 04:44:21 -0800 (PST),DanP<dan.pe...@hotmail.com>
Even if it looks fine on 2" of LCD it wont mean it will look fine on a
17" calibrated computer monitor with an area 70 times bigger than
cameras, or in print.
DanP
NameHere
>On Feb 4, 11:05�am, NameHere <w...@address.info> wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 02:20:36 -0800 (PST),DanP<dan.pe...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> Have you done the tests with CHDK capable cameras? If not then you're just
>> another ignorant idiot troll.
>
>No, I have not done any speed test at the time i wrote my previous
>messages.
>
>But I just did now and I can tell you my SX100 with CHDK can not shoot
>faster than 1/2500 sec, with or witout CHDK.
>
>To do the test I set Manual control, maximum ISO (1600), maximum
>aperture (f/2.8) and 1 sec exposure.
There's your problem right there. You never read the CHDK manual. The
shutter speed is tied to aperture, because the aperture blades do
double-duty as the shutter in these cameras. Just as the smallest apertures
built-into Canon's own firmware only allow faster shutter speeds on their
own menus. Now you know why this is so.
Just another case of ignorant user error.
>Then in the CHDK menu I have started shooting a lamp with the fastest
>values I could pick, 1/100k, then went up 1/64k, 1/40k, 1/25k,
>1/12500, 1/8000, 1/5000, 1/3200, 1/2500, the fastest speed the camera
>can shoot witout CHDK, 1/2000, 1/500, 1/100.
>From 1/100k to 1/2500 all look the same. From 1/2500 upwards I can
>notice the shots becoming brighter.
>
>I installed CHDK over 1 year ago and played with all the settings. I
Now you can RTFM sometime.
>have noticed long ago that taking the shutter speed to ridiculous
>levels does not cause the camera to shoot that fast.
>Having the manual exposure set to 1 sec in the camera manual mode and
>seeing shots becoming brighter assures me CHDK exposure overide works
>fine and I have set it correctly.
>
>Since you can have CHDK only on Canon, and as you can see mine cannot
>shoot faster than 1/2500 sec your original claim that most P&S can
>shoot as fast as 1/80000 does not stand.
>
>Since I am backing up my claims I invite you to do the same test and
>disclose your results.
>
This has already been done, years ago. The testing was done with a fast
scanning laser. The only reliable method that isn't skewed by a cold or
warm sensor that is shifting the ISO sensitivity during use, nor any
mains-powered light-source that flickers in brightness from AC cycles.
Using a histogram to determine true shutter speeds is useless at these fast
rates. A different more reliable method had to be found.
<http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync#Shutter_Speed_Test_by_Laser>
You may find other models and their tested top shutter speeds on this page
<http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures>
Your SX100 has already been tested to 1/40,000 second at f/8.0-11.
You can also search all of Flickr for all the example photos that others
have done of all myriad of subjects using CHDK or using these fast shutter
speeds. Never having them available before people were deaf, dumb, and
blind to all their possible uses. They are no longer blinded and crippled
by focal-plane shutter limitations. They're starting to realize all the
photography subjects with which they are useful.
Here's a fun link to browse some of the more popular CHDK P&S-camera photo
examples <http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk> The lightning and bird
shots are particularly interesting, taken with the 45ms-fast
motion-detection capability of CHDK.
Bristolian
>
> Since colour perception is dependant on ambient light,
> I think you're full of shit.
>
> BugBear
You didn't need the first line of that post ;-)
--
Regards
Bristolian
DanP
>
> You may find other models and their tested top shutter speeds on this page
> <http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures>
>
> Your SX100 has already been tested to 1/40,000 second at f/8.0-11.
At 1/40000sec I need the widest aperture to let in the light so thats
why I use it.
With f/8 is useless, too dark.
And I was generous with ISO 1600, anythig above 400 is so noisy is
useless.
Your claim is most P&S can shoot as fast as 1/80000.
Since you mention CHDK which is only available for Canon only and even
in your link I cannot see ANY with that rate, in fact most cannot take
advantage of CHDK to shorten shutter speed, your claim is not
sustained.
Got any good picture shot faster than 1/4000 sec that you shot
yourself?
DanP
DanP
> Here's a fun link to browse some of the more popular CHDK P&S-camera photo
> examples <http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk> The lightning and bird
> shots are particularly interesting, taken with the 45ms-fast
45ms motion detection means nothing when you cannot take more than 1.3
fps.
I am better off taking continuos shots with my DSLR at 3fps. The best
DSLR can achieve up to 10. That is 1 frame nearly every 2*45ms.
Then pick the best shot.
Follow the link above, scroll to the 5th row, click on the last photo,
lightpaint of the guy on the bench with the ball (http://
www.flickr.com/photos/36774021@N08/3739744960) and read on what the
guy using CHDK has to say:
"Not perfect but oh well, I'll post it anyway. I'll take all this more
seriously when I get a DSLR, but for now I'm just having fun and
trying stuff."
DanP
DanP
> Here's a fun link to browse some of the more popular CHDK P&S-camera photo
> examples <http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk> The lightning and bird
> shots are particularly interesting, taken with the 45ms-fast
> motion-detection capability of CHDK.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
And this shot http://www.flickr.com/photos/jciv/2418121459/meta/ was
processed from RAW.
DanP
NameHere
Useless and too dark for you. You're not creative enough nor intelligent
enough to know when and why it is extremely useful.
>And I was generous with ISO 1600, anythig above 400 is so noisy is
>useless.
>
>Your claim is most P&S can shoot as fast as 1/80000.
>Since you mention CHDK which is only available for Canon only and even
>in your link I cannot see ANY with that rate, in fact most cannot take
>advantage of CHDK to shorten shutter speed, your claim is not
>sustained.
I never said "most". You're the only one who keeps claiming that.
Though 50+ makes and models of cameras, with more being added monthly, is
hardly a few.
Why is it that you have such a problem with this? Because you can't even
learn how to use the one you have?
>
>Got any good picture shot faster than 1/4000 sec that you shot
>yourself?
>
Yes. I do. Many of them. How much money do you have in order to see them?
NameHere
>
>> Here's a fun link to browse some of the more popular CHDK P&S-camera photo
>> examples <http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk> The lightning and bird
>> shots are particularly interesting, taken with the 45ms-fast
>> motion-detection capability of CHDK.- Hide quoted text -
>
>45ms motion detection means nothing when you cannot take more than 1.3
>fps.
>I am better off taking continuos shots with my DSLR at 3fps. The best
>DSLR can achieve up to 10. That is 1 frame nearly every 2*45ms.
>Then pick the best shot.
P&S can attain 10 fps too. That's not the issue here. How many photos are
you going to waste at 10 fps waiting for a decent lightning strike when a
P&S camera can do it without error on the first shot every time. Lightning
strike shots can even be taken in daylight hand-held with a CHDK camera.
Something that is impossible for you to accomplish with any DSLR.
>
>Follow the link above, scroll to the 5th row, click on the last photo,
>lightpaint of the guy on the bench with the ball (http://
>www.flickr.com/photos/36774021@N08/3739744960) and read on what the
>guy using CHDK has to say:
>"Not perfect but oh well, I'll post it anyway. I'll take all this more
>seriously when I get a DSLR, but for now I'm just having fun and
>trying stuff."
>
>DanP
Oh wait, let me browse the net and find a post where someone is giving up
on the frailties, dust problems, cost, lost shots from changing lenses, and
weight of their DSLRs, on ad-infinauseum ... Damn, there's so many I can't
decide which of the hundreds of thousands are worth posting here.
You're a troll and a fool. One who has now proved in the worldwide arena
that you can't even use a simple P&S camera properly.
Thanks for playing.
Ray Fischer
>On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:14:45 +0000, bugbear
><bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>
>>NameHere wrote:
>>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:38:59 +0000, bugbear
>>> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> They also do a fine job of
>>> retaining the full dynamic range of the sensor in the JPG file to begin
>>> with.
>>
>>This is trivial; here an alogorithm:
>>
>>RAW 0 -> JEPG 0
>>RAW MAX -> JPEG MAX
>>
>>You speak as if this is some kind of achievment.
>
>Ask any DSLR owner who worships RAW and you'll find out that
... that you're a lying troll.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:01:57 -0800 (PST), DanP <dan....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 4, 11:05�am, NameHere <w...@address.info> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 02:20:36 -0800 (PST),DanP<dan.pe...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> Have you done the tests with CHDK capable cameras? If not then you're just
>>> another ignorant idiot troll.
>>
>>No, I have not done any speed test at the time i wrote my previous
>>messages.
>>
>>But I just did now and I can tell you my SX100 with CHDK can not shoot
>>faster than 1/2500 sec, with or witout CHDK.
>>
>>To do the test I set Manual control, maximum ISO (1600), maximum
>>aperture (f/2.8) and 1 sec exposure.
>
>There's your problem right there. You never read the CHDK manual. The
The problem is that he's responding to a lying troll with actual facts.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Vance
> You're a troll and a fool. One who has now proved in the worldwide arena
> that you can't even use a simple P&S camera properly.
>
> Thanks for playing.
And you are tedious.
Here is a minor truth for you: If you want to produce the highest
quality images in a small format, then a decent DSLR will do that - no
P&S will. There are shots that you can get with a DSLR and a kit lens
that I doubt you can get with a P&S.
Another minor truth: P&S cameras can produce beautiful images in the
right hands, but if you want to fully explore the potential of
photography, then they are something that peopole grow out of.
You make claims about the great shots you have taken. The strikes me
as a doubtful proposition. I, of course, haven't seen your 'work',
but that's okay. I don't really care to. Serious gearheads, the ones
who always talk about the technical merits of this and the technical
merits of that rarely are capable of producing more than technically
correct images that are forgetable. That's the real gearheads.
Someone like you? I think I would rather have someone show me all
their vacation pictures for their last 3 vacations in one sitting than
look at a shot of yours. Their's will be more interesting. Besides,
after 10 years of clinical practice, I've seen all the expressions of
neuroticism given a venue that I want.
If you think you are that good, I'll post complete instructions on how
to setup a shot with nothing more than a window, a couple of pieces of
plastic, something to put them on and a bed sheet and I know that
probably 20 - 30 people here will be able to do it using nothing more
than a decent DSLR and a kit lens. You won't be able to.
NOTE: I can capture lightning strikes, even during the day, without
fail, with any one of my DSLR's. Oh, almost forgot, handheld.
Vance
bugbear
You've address none of th points I raised,
choosing to attack a group who aren't even
in this thread.
You clearly just want to rant, despite my attempt
to discuss matters of genuine interest.
<END THREAD>
bugbear
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:16:18 +0000, bugbear
> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>
>> NameHere wrote:
>>> I see the correct color balance and exposure on the LCD or
>>> EVF *before* I take the shot.
>> Since colour perception is dependant on ambient light,
>> I think you're full of shit.
>>
>> BugBear
>
> You can think anything you want, I could care less.
If you don't care what I think, stop posting
to convince me of things.
BugBear
bugbear
Apparently he can do this - some kind of mutant eyeball,
unknown to colour science.
BugBear
DanP
> >Got any good picture shot faster than 1/4000 sec that you shot
> >yourself?
>
> Yes. I do. Many of them. How much money do you have in order to see them?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I dont want to see some extremly useful photos of water flowing in
your kitchen sink and I certainly I am not paying any money.
DanP
NameHere
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>
>CMYK is a redundant colour space. It's equivalent (pace gamut concerns)
>to RGB.
Wherever did you read this? Must have been one of those "net-truths" that
are so popular. The "net-truths" that float to the top of a Google search
because it's the most plausible and popular, but wrong, explanation for
those who can't think very clearly. The vast majority that don't want to
try to understand nor take the time to educate themselves on anything more
complex. This comprises the majority of all Google search-hits within the
first 3 pages of them which are offered. Someone's feeding you some pretty
good manure and keeping you in the dark. Do you feel like a fungus yet?
When converting my images to CMYK from their RGB sources it's easy to see
how many of the colors are not a match and get shifted. The reverse also
true. Have you never done this in any editor with even something as simple
as a Granger Calibration Chart? The shifts and obvious gaps between the two
color-spaces are astounding.
Here's an example to show you, starting with a 3000x3000 16-bit RGB Granger
Chart as the source. Sorry, I don't have a CMYK Granger-like chart handy to
show you the reverse. It can only be approximated in CMYK anyway. And I've
already wasted far too much of my valuable time trying to educate you to
begin with. Any CMYK to RGB conversion of anything would, of course, show
far less disastrous results. Though, come to think of it, the CMYK to RGB
is already implied in the right-panel because the CMYK space has to be
converted back again to JPG's RGB and your monitor. This would explain the
serious gaps in the colors re-presented.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4071/4332259033_c0dced9de7_o.jpg
3 discreet units of information vs. 4 discreet units of information. There
can only be a rough approximation between the two. And you want to argue
about 8 vs. 10 vs. 12 senosr bit-depths while ignoring something even more
simple for an example? Trying to go from RGB to CMYK is like trying to go
from RGB to reconstruct Bayer's RGGB. Though I'll admit, with slightly
less difficulty. Have someone explain to you why you can't reconstruct the
sensor's RGGB data from the resulting RGB file and you'll start to
comprehend why CMYK and RGB are not equivalent. I can't be bothered with
trying to educate someone on something so rudimentary. I've tried that in
the past and it was a painstaking task not unlike trying to teach a worm
how to flip a light switch.
I wasn't going to address the rest of your comments because I was trying to
spare you the embarrassment. So I'll just address this one to show you why
I didn't bother. You can thank me for not addressing the rest of your post.
Ray Fischer
>On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:14:45 +0000, bugbear
><bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>
>>
>>CMYK is a redundant colour space. It's equivalent (pace gamut concerns)
>>to RGB.
>
>Wherever did you read this? Must have been one of those "net-truths" that
You're a stupid troll as well as a liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
NameHere
This comment being brought to you by a useless and ignorant newsgroup
troll, Ray Fischer, who can't even comprehend the difference between the
amount of 3-letter words in the english language and the amount of all
4-letter words. (RGB vs. CMYK)
I suspect his whole life has been lived in a world comprised of only
3-letter words and the amount of available concepts portrayed by them. 4
letters joined together are too complex for him, as well as the amount of
permutations befuddling him even further. Any ideas that can be expressed
with more than 3-letter words are so far outside his realm of comprehension
it would be like asking someone having lived and learned their reality in
the 2D space of Flatland to visualize and comprehend a tesseract.
NameHere
>
>Here's an example to show you, starting with a 3000x3000 16-bit RGB Granger
>Chart as the source. Sorry, I don't have a CMYK Granger-like chart handy to
>show you the reverse. It can only be approximated in CMYK anyway. And I've
>already wasted far too much of my valuable time trying to educate you to
>begin with. Any CMYK to RGB conversion of anything would, of course, show
>far less disastrous results. Though, come to think of it, the CMYK to RGB
>is already implied in the right-panel because the CMYK space has to be
>converted back again to JPG's RGB and your monitor. This would explain the
>serious gaps in the colors re-presented.
>
>http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4071/4332259033_c0dced9de7_o.jpg
>
>
Just for curiosity, never having created a 16-bit CMYK Granger Chart
before, I thought I'd see what happens in reverse. While I could not see an
accurate representation of this chart on my monitor, it being in a lowly
RBG color-space, the method to create both was identical. So the values
applied to the pixels would have been identical in range as those contained
in an original RGB Granger Chart (represented in the left panel in the
above link). The only difference was working from 16-bit CMYK layers and
data as the origin, as opposed to creating the original from 16-bit RGB
layers.
Here's what happens when you try to cram a 16-bit CMYK color-space into an
RGB one.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4069/4332686067_1e96fd68b8_o.jpg
This is precisely like trying to pour 65,536 gallons of information into a
1 gallon bucket.
It is interesting to also note that if all of you had the original chart
data, that all of your monitors will not show you the same image that
anyone else is seeing, due to their own individual limitations and your
graphic-card's limitations too. Most of the original values being well
outside the scope of anyone's hardware. This is why a digitally created
Granger Chart is a good analysis tool.
If you'd like to create your own using any editor, simple instructions can
be found at <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/test-charts.shtml>
If you try to make a 16-bit CMYK Granger Chart be advised that you won't be
able to see much of anything until after you convert both layers to an RGB
color-space. Then you will see something similar to what I posted above. I
would also advise using an HIS spectrum gradient rather than the method
suggested at luminous-landscape. The "rainbow" gradient default in
Photoslop is horrendously lacking in hues. I just got through comparing the
two and was surprised yet again at how limited that Photoslop truly is.
Ray Fischer
>On 05 Feb 2010 17:59:57 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>NameHere <wh...@address.info> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:14:45 +0000, bugbear
>>><bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>CMYK is a redundant colour space. It's equivalent (pace gamut concerns)
>>>>to RGB.
>>>
>>>Wherever did you read this? Must have been one of those "net-truths" that
>>
>>You're a stupid troll as well as a liar.
>
>This comment being brought to you by a useless and ignorant newsgroup
Go away, asshole troll.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
bugbear
Go and look up the word "gamut".
BugBear
Ray Fischer
>Here's what happens when you try to cram a 16-bit CMYK color-space into an
>RGB one.
It's trivial to prove, mathematically, that CMYK is redundant.
The RGB color 0,0,0 can be converted to the CMYK color space as
both 1,1,1,0 and 0,0,0,1. Since CMYK has at least one color that
can be represented with two different quads then CMYK is redundant.
RGB is not redundant because there is no case where one color can be
represented by two different triples.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
bugbear
> NameHere <wh...@address.info> wrote:
>> Here's what happens when you try to cram a 16-bit CMYK color-space into an
>> RGB one.
>
> It's trivial to prove, mathematically, that CMYK is redundant.
"namehere" didn't know what redundant meant ;-)
BugBear
NameHere
Except for the fact that 100% saturation of cyan magenta and yellow does
not make black. Ever print with an early printer that only had a CMY
cartridge? Of course not. You probably don't even have a printer, much less
a camera. Even less, a mind.
First off, you don't know that RGB 000 is more closely equivalent to
255,255,255,x CMYK in an 8-bit depth color-space.
Secondly, the closest that 255,255,255,0 CMYK can convert to in RGB is
19,44,44. This is why CMY printers could only print a muddy dark blue-green
for their blacks.
I'd tell you to go to Oz, scarecrow, but even miracles couldn't help
something as devoid of hay in that gunny-sack which you pathetically call a
head.
Go educate yourself. Start by asking your mommy to explain what all those
things are in your box of crayons.
NameHere
Oh look, another idiot troll that doesn't even know what RGB and CMYK
means.
NameHere
Yes, you might want to do that. A good thing you left a note to yourself to
remind you.
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>NameHere <wh...@address.info> wrote:
>>>Here's what happens when you try to cram a 16-bit CMYK color-space into an
>>>RGB one.
>>
>>It's trivial to prove, mathematically, that CMYK is redundant.
>>
>>The RGB color 0,0,0 can be converted to the CMYK color space as
>>both 1,1,1,0 and 0,0,0,1. Since CMYK has at least one color that
>>can be represented with two different quads then CMYK is redundant.
>>RGB is not redundant because there is no case where one color can be
>>represented by two different triples.
>
>Except for the fact that 100% saturation of cyan magenta and yellow does
>not make black.
Wrong again, dumbshit. If you actually do the math (which is,
admittedly, asking far too much of a moron like you) then you
see that my example above is wholly correct.
> Ever print with an early printer that only had a CMY
Since when do inks care about the number of bits used in a color
space, moron?
>First off, you don't know that RGB 000 is more closely equivalent to
>255,255,255,x CMYK in an 8-bit depth color-space.
Yes, idiot, I do know that because unlike you I am not a moron and I
do know how to convert RGB to CMYK and back. If you look at the
actual formula you will see that black is derived FROM the CMY values,
which means that CMY is wholly equivalent to RGB and the black is
mathematicaly redundant.
>Secondly, the closest that 255,255,255,0 CMYK can convert to in RGB is
>19,44,44.
Wrong again, dumbshit. 255,255,255,0 CMYK is 0,0,0 in RGB. CMYK is a
SUBTRACTIVE color space and when you remove all of cyan, meganta, and
yellow you have nothing left. No red, green, or blue.
>I'd tell you to go to Oz, scarecrow,
You're a stupid asshole, too stupid to realize what a moron you are.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:36:08 +0000, bugbear
><bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>
>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> NameHere <wh...@address.info> wrote:
>>>> Here's what happens when you try to cram a 16-bit CMYK color-space into an
>>>> RGB one.
>>>
>>> It's trivial to prove, mathematically, that CMYK is redundant.
>>
>>"namehere" didn't know what redundant meant ;-)
>
Go away, dumbshit. Try again when YOU learn what they mean.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
NameHere
>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>
>>>The RGB color 0,0,0 can be converted to the CMYK color space as
>>>both 1,1,1,0 and 0,0,0,1.
>>
On 09 Feb 2010 17:02:33 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>Wrong again, dumbshit. 255,255,255,0 CMYK is 0,0,0 in RGB. CMYK is a
>SUBTRACTIVE color space and when you remove all of cyan, meganta, and
>yellow you have nothing left. No red, green, or blue.
>
>You're a stupid asshole, too stupid to realize what a moron you are.
When you can figure out the difference between 1,1,1 and 255,255,255; let
us all know. While you're at it, print your last line above on some paper
and stick it to your forehead with a staple-gun. But flip it horizontally
before printing, so you can read it when you learn how to use a mirror too.
Ray Fischer
>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>The RGB color 0,0,0 can be converted to the CMYK color space as
>>>>both 1,1,1,0 and 0,0,0,1.
>>>
>
>On 09 Feb 2010 17:02:33 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>Wrong again, dumbshit. 255,255,255,0 CMYK is 0,0,0 in RGB. CMYK is a
>>SUBTRACTIVE color space and when you remove all of cyan, meganta, and
>>yellow you have nothing left. No red, green, or blue.
>
>>
>>You're a stupid asshole, too stupid to realize what a moron you are.
>
>When you can figure out the difference between 1,1,1 and 255,255,255;
Oh look, the stupid asshole cannot figure out how to normalize 0-255
to 0-1. No wonder it doesn't know anything about color spaces.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net