Finally, an interesting Antarctica shot
Rich
Penguins. Ever since that movie came out, and the "yuppies" decided it was
trendy to spend lots of money to go to that barren waste of a continent,
we've been inundated with them. Penguins and icebergs. Well finally, here
is a shot that shows something different. Bravo to M. Reichman
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/1photo-pages/abandoned.shtml
He's also not the only one to begin questioning the validity/value of DXO
Mark scores.
Pete D
"Rich" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:6sGdnXcHJ_J5BhXU...@giganews.com...
some of his other shots are not bad.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/locations/antarctica.shtml
Me
>
> He's also not the only one to begin questioning the validity/value of DXO
> Mark scores.
>
forums and review sites as if they were the final word on the subjective
matter of "image quality". Their figures ignore negative effects of
on-chip NR with cmos sensors. That provides incentive for manufacturers
to tweak raw output to suit the measurement tool.
D-Mac
>
> He's also not the only one to begin questioning the validity/value of
> DXO Mark scores.
There may be those who "question" the value or validity (what does that
mean) of DxO but undeniably... It's output of technically correct
images from technically flawed lenses would not be in question.
If you bought DxO for editing, you wasted your money.
If you bought DxO to replace Lightroom, you wasted your money.
If you own German made "Leica" lenses and bought DxO you wasted your
money too but...
If you bought DxO (under $300) to fix the crap from Canon's consumer
grade lenses and the rubbish they label as "L" series, you saved some
serious money and achieved exceptional image quality at exceptionally
low cost.
Personally, I bought DxO when I owned Canon DSLR cameras. Canon (even
"L") lenses have some pretty rough engineering in them. DxO fixes their
shortcomings. It's as simple as that. Worth every cent it costs.
After having used it for several years it makes me wonder at the
motives of someone who "questions" the value of such a product. Maybe
he's expecting it too cook his toast in the mornings?
--
Meet D-Mac, the man they love to hate.
http://www.D-mac.info
4/02/2009 6:26:56 AM
Rich
mac.motzarella.org:
Dxo Mark isn't the program, Dxo Optics Pro.
Paul Furman
Where's the caption for the rusty (military?) tanks? It's not a very
appealing photo but looks like an interesting story.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Paul Furman
> On 2009-02-03 15:18:19 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> said:
>
>> Pete D wrote:
>>> "Rich" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:6sGdnXcHJ_J5BhXU...@giganews.com...
>>>> I can't describe how sick I am of looking at endless shots of frigging
>>>> Penguins. Ever since that movie came out, and the "yuppies" decided
>>>> it was
>>>> trendy to spend lots of money to go to that barren waste of a
>>>> continent,
>>>> we've been inundated with them. Penguins and icebergs. Well
>>>> finally, here
>>>> is a shot that shows something different. Bravo to M. Reichman
>>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/1photo-pages/abandoned.shtml
>>>>
>>>> He's also not the only one to begin questioning the validity/value
>>>> of DXO
>>>> Mark scores.
>>>
>>> some of his other shots are not bad.
>>>
>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/locations/antarctica.shtml
>>
>> Where's the caption for the rusty (military?) tanks? It's not a very
>> appealing photo but looks like an interesting story.
>
> M18 or M36 variants)converted to early Sno-Cats for the late 1940's &
> early 1950's Antartica explorations. The reveal is the R975 radial engine.
> Once they were beyond use it was probably not cost effective to salvage
> them, and they were abandoned.
Makes sense, thanks.
Here's the article that talks about DXO Mark & features that pic:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/eyes-vs-numbers.shtml
actually the 'measurebater' story starts here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/quality-vs-value.shtml
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
>I can't describe how sick I am of looking at endless shots of frigging
>Penguins. Ever since that movie came out, and the "yuppies" decided it was
Then you won't like this:
http://www.metalvortex.com/myphotos/antarctica/rook.htm
Heh, heh, heh!
What movie?
I don't think that I'd call Reichmann a yuppie :o
And whoever does go to Antarctica, it's their money, their time,
their experience. I'd say "Go for it". Why not?
And well done Reichmann & Co, some of those photos are much better
than those from 2005, but I wasn't too impressed with the tractored
vehicles. But each to their own ;)
--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/
Brain! Brain! What is brain?!
C J Campbell
Hey. I like penguins.
What I do with my money is none of your business, whether I am a yuppie
or not (I am far too old to be a yuppie -- plus I am retired, so if I
am a professional anything it would be professional grandpa).
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
Rich
news:92mjo4169sl5q6uee...@4ax.com:
> http://www.metalvortex.com/myp
Factor out the birds, those mountains would look outstanding in B&W. Great
cloud texture, tonality.
Rich
news:2009020414461477923-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:
It is my business if by going to public-access websites or buying magazines
I'm subjected to the boredom and sameness of all those tedious penguin
shots. Trust me, if I could avoid it, I would. But it's like purple skies
in British landscape shots, unavoidable.
It's legal, it's free choice, but it's DULL, repetitive and boring.
IMO, the overdone subject holds no more value and is no different than a 4-
year old who learns a new word then repeats it 100x a day. Except that
here it's being foisted on us by adults!! Just because someone,
inexplicably, wants to spend $15k on it doesn't make it interesting.
Remember what the last done-to-death subject was? "Ship breaking" in
Pakistan. More busybody, well-to-do Westerners sticking their nose in
other country's business.
Nervous Nick
> I can't describe how sick I am of looking at endless shots of frigging
> Penguins.
So stop looking at them.
Ever since that movie came out, and the "yuppies" decided it was
> trendy to spend lots of money to go to that barren waste of a continent,
> we've been inundated with them. Penguins and icebergs. Well finally, here
> is a shot that shows something different. Bravo to M. Reichmanhttp://www.luminous-landscape.com/1photo-pages/abandoned.shtml
That's a great shot. I don't think it has anything to do with DxO,
but still it's unusual. It depicts a couple of rusting tank hulls
languishing in snow, which is always a rich subject.
So why has nobody in this thread asked about the bird in the
background?
--
YOP...
D-Mac
Their methodology is optically and math correct. The program has few
rivals and those that might be considered rivals use flawed methodology
or unexplainable math.
Just because you don't get the answer you want is no reason to shoot
the messenger, is it?
--
Meet D-Mac, the man they love to hate.
http://www.D-mac.info
4/02/2009 8:20:00 PM
Me
>
> Their methodology is optically and math correct.
>
No it ain't!
They state an objective value ("image quality" scores) based on:
a) their selection of points at which to measure the parameters, which
do not need to (and probably do not) correlate to measures taken at
other points.
b) their weighting of various "measured" (see above) performance
parameters from which to calculate a final "score"
Either make the "score" a subjective measure. Both together make it a joke.
Their tests might be /repeatable/, but they aren't correct WRT the bold
headlines on sensor performance.
Not saying that DxO is a total load of shit, but there's a very clear
whiff of something you wouldn't want to stand in.
> The program has few
> rivals and those that might be considered rivals use flawed methodology
> or unexplainable math.
>
Forget the math - use your eyes.
Justin C
>
> It is my business if by going to public-access websites or buying
> magazines I'm subjected to the boredom and sameness of all those
> tedious penguin shots. Trust me, if I could avoid it, I would.
You don't know how to *not* buy a magazine, and you don't know how not
to look at a web-site? Are you sure your carers know that you are using
their computer?
Justin.
--
Justin C, by the sea.
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Hey ;)
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
wrote:
>On 2009-02-04 10:28:09 -0800, Kulvinder Singh Matharu
><real-addr...@lineone.net> said:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 13:32:52 -0600, Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I can't describe how sick I am of looking at endless shots of frigging
>>> Penguins. Ever since that movie came out, and the "yuppies" decided it was
>>
>> Then you won't like this:
>> http://www.metalvortex.com/myphotos/antarctica/rook.htm
>
>Well the concept seems valid, however the end result did not translate
>itself well for me. I enjoyed an abstract, fuzzy out of focus panning
>waste of bandwidth.
Something is broken...what OS/browser combo do you use?
>> Heh, heh, heh!
>>
>> What movie?
>>
>> I don't think that I'd call Reichmann a yuppie :o
>>
>> And whoever does go to Antarctica, it's their money, their time,
>> their experience. I'd say "Go for it". Why not?
>>
>> And well done Reichmann & Co, some of those photos are much better
>> than those from 2005, but I wasn't too impressed with the tractored
>> vehicles. But each to their own ;)
>
>I think you missed the point and purpose of the "tractored vehicle"
>shot, I don't believe you were meant to be impressed. It was a sad
>illustration of a chapter of Antarctic exploration.
"impressed" is a word that can be used in many ways. Rather like the
word "fantastic".
The image did nothing for me. Not sad. Not happy.
>There is more to Antarctica than penguins, regardless of their
>photogenic qualities.
Of course there is; who said otherwise?
The other images were great...don't recall seeing even a single
penguin in any of those shots.
David J Taylor
Paul Furman
>>>> "Rich" wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> He's also not the only one to begin questioning the validity/value
>>>>> of DXO Mark scores.
>>>>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/eyes-vs-numbers.shtml
> actually the 'measurebater' story starts here:
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/quality-vs-value.shtml
I responded to this in another thread but nobody replied. Maybe I should
have mentioned the Face of God in the title <g>.
re-post:
My summary and a few opinions on these two articles in a series about
data measuring vs subjective camera testing and about the price
difference for relatively little additional performance:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/quality-vs-value.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/eyes-vs-numbers.shtml
Nice concise description of the situation. Of course he throws some
opinion in too.
He says DXO Mark does not include megapixel count... OK that was not
clear to me. Seems easy enough to figure in though. I would probably use
a linear measure rather than area but you can just assess that for your
print size needs if you like.
And he describes how the DXO Mark data is done with raw files on the
same raw converter - and how some cameras like Nikons have pattern noise
reduction processing applied to the raw conversion where others rely on
the jpeg conversion or proprietary raw converters to accomplish that
step. And how the medium format digitals apply antialiasing in post.
Feel free to correct my reading of that or other factors I missed.
Then he says because of these irregularities, the data approach is not
very reliable. The comparison is made to the audio recording industry's
conversion to digital[1] and he asserts that the data model was rejected
by audiophiles in the end, citing at least one example of how
manufacturers cheated to create good numbers at the price of fidelity.
Well, I don't discount that but this is where it gets into religious
territory: saying that it's all just too complex and we can never know
the true nature of the universe. That's of course somewhat true but the
numbers are something we can know and continue to evaluate and learn
more about and it looks to me like they are mostly spot on so far,
especially given the above qualifications.
Lastly, he discusses price for performance ratio. He gives personal
examples breaking the rules in both directions for the advice given in
these discussions so I'll write that off as Rockwellian hyperbola <g>.
But yes, there is a big jump in price for not much performance
improvement as you go up and everyone will obviously find their own
priorities to solve these issues. It seems about right when he says a
5-point difference is statistically insignificant where today's DSLRs
come in between 50 and 80 on the DXO Mark scale, with P&S at around 35.
I'm guessing a crappy web cam or cell phone might be about a 10 on that
scale.
[1] one might also compare the transition of video from analog to
digital, and to higher resolution, which is really still in it's
infancy, to the extent that file size & compression have more to do with
image quality than anything else as far as I know, again, feel free to
correct and add info here <g>.
Doug McDonald
>>>> Then you won't like this:
>>>> http://www.metalvortex.com/myphotos/antarctica/rook.htm
>>>
>>> Well the concept seems valid, however the end result did not translate
>>> itself well for me. I enjoyed an abstract, fuzzy out of focus panning
>>> waste of bandwidth.
>>
>> Something is broken...what OS/browser combo do you use?
>
> unsatisfactory results.
>
>>
Does not work for me on a PC either ... it is hopelessly fuzzy over most
of it, with a few sharp spots.
A failure.
Doug McDonald
Ray Fischer
>On 2009-02-10 09:53:52 -0800, Kulvinder Singh Matharu
>
>> On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 19:09:21 -0800, Savageduck <savag...@savage.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-02-04 10:28:09 -0800, Kulvinder Singh Matharu
>>> <real-addr...@lineone.net> said:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 13:32:52 -0600, Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I can't describe how sick I am of looking at endless shots of frigging
>>>>> Penguins. Ever since that movie came out, and the "yuppies" decided it was
>>>>
>>>> Then you won't like this:
>>>> http://www.metalvortex.com/myphotos/antarctica/rook.htm
>>>
>>> Well the concept seems valid, however the end result did not translate
>>> itself well for me. I enjoyed an abstract, fuzzy out of focus panning
>>> waste of bandwidth.
>>
>> Something is broken...what OS/browser combo do you use?
>
>unsatisfactory results.
I see the same result. Works on Vista after a couple of moments.
For whatever reason the Java code on the Mac isn't getting the full
resolution image.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Thanks. Used a Canon 40D handheld with a 70-300mm lens at 70mm.
Stitched together using PTGui.
I did have a wider lens in my back-pack but I decided it was quicker
taking a series of photos rather than swapping the lenses. It was
very much an experiment.
It's interesting that the Canon cameras suffered a number of failures
during Reichmann's latest Antarctica trip. I do remember that my 40D
had a vertical dial...perhaps this is a weakness as it could allow
water into the camera. But I never had such problems even when I was
in Patagonia with my camera out in the rain for 8 hours...but my
28-135mm lens did need to be dried out though!
I'm now using a Nikon D700 and it seems pretty solid.
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
<savag...@savage.net> wrote:
[snip]
>OSX, tried with Safari, Firefox, Seamonkey & Mozilla, with similar
>unsatisfactory results.
I'll see what I can find out. I know that this doesn't help you but
it does work in:
a. IE6, IE7, Opera, Firefox and Chrome under 32-bit Windows XP,
32-bit Vista Ultimate and 64-bit Vista Ultimate.
b. Firefox under 64-bit Ubuntu.
I don't have access to OSX but I'll ask some friends at work.
[snip]
>Umm, "sad" is a word that can be used in many ways...
Yup.
[snip]
>
>Exactly. However a penguin or two would have been acceptably
>entertaining in that vastness.
:)
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
[snip]
>I see the same result. Works on Vista after a couple of moments.
>For whatever reason the Java code on the Mac isn't getting the full
>resolution image.
Interesting. The way the Java app is configured is that it will
pre-load a low resolution (highly pixilated) image and display that
while it's still downloading the large higher resolution image...once
the higher resolution image is loaded then the Java app should
display that.
I don't have access to OSX but I'll ask around...someone at work may
have a Macbook or something.
Thanks for the heads-up on the problems.
David J Taylor
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:20:01 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-...@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>> http://www.metalvortex.com/myphotos/antarctica/rook.htm
>>
>>
>> Very nice shot!
>
> Thanks. Used a Canon 40D handheld with a 70-300mm lens at 70mm.
> Stitched together using PTGui.
>
> I did have a wider lens in my back-pack but I decided it was quicker
> taking a series of photos rather than swapping the lenses. It was
> very much an experiment.
An interesting comment, Kulvinder. I have Nikon with the 16-85mm VR and
70-300mm VR lenses, both capable of excellent results, but just before the
Antarctica trip I bought an 18-200mm VR lens specifically to avoid the
need to lens changes, and it ended up on the camera most of the time. The
fast response of the DSLR and its auto-focus helped capture a few more
shots as well. I had a Panasonic TZ3 compact "dangling from my wrist" for
those occasions where a short movie captured the scene better (penguin
behaviour, for example).
Cheers,
David
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
<david-...@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>An interesting comment, Kulvinder. I have Nikon with the 16-85mm VR and
>70-300mm VR lenses, both capable of excellent results, but just before the
>Antarctica trip I bought an 18-200mm VR lens specifically to avoid the
>need to lens changes, and it ended up on the camera most of the time. The
>fast response of the DSLR and its auto-focus helped capture a few more
>shots as well. I had a Panasonic TZ3 compact "dangling from my wrist" for
>those occasions where a short movie captured the scene better (penguin
>behaviour, for example).
Yes, swapping lenses out there was something that I tried to
avoid...taking gloves off, getting into the back-pack...So I normally
stuck with the 70-300mm lens.
Do you have a portfolio on the web?
David J Taylor
[]
> Do you have a portfolio on the web?
Sorry, no I don't.
David