[LRflex] Re: More contoversy!

  • From: Philippe Amard <phamard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 09:17:46 +0100

Very fine pixes indeed David, thanks for sharing
Only I have to now join, was it Jerry? who early on this thread said one 
should modify only ONE variable
Until you manage to do this, and whatever your -proven - talents as a 
photographer and a presenter, there will always remain a flaw in the 
conclusions we may draw.

For my part, i can't see the edge of the DMR over film, yes film, on the 
last two pixes.
And if I had to choose one of the  last three posted, I'd say the 
Canon's best.
Sorry about this.
Your , was it grandson? in the anorak the other day, was much more 
telling than these two.

Waiting for "analytical" comparisons.
Enjoy the weekend.
Mine will be gray again I'm afraid
Phileicangénieux


David Young wrote:

>Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the computer/camera room!
>
>OK.  We've talked before about the "work around" that Ted seems to hate 
>so much, for the high ISO noise problem with the DM-R, as opposed to the 
>simple cranking up the ISO with the Canon 20D.
>
>I now offer you three photographs.
>
>The first two were taken within minutes of each other, from the same 
>vantage point, same DM-R (I can't afford two!) and with the same lens... 
>the Telyt 400 f6.8 and 2x converter.   On the first shot (a squirrel) 
>the ISO was set to 400, with the exposure compensation set to -3 stops.  
>The second shot (a woodpecker) was also at ISO 400, but with the 
>exposure compensation set to -2 stops.   Both shots were developed with 
>identical parameters, other than the exposure compensation, which was +3 
>and +2 stops, respectively... bringing them back to "normal" exposure.  
>No more. No less.  Thus, we have two shots with **effective** ISO speeds 
>of 3200 and 1600, respectively.
>
>As a "control", I have found a similar style shot (of a Rufous-naped 
>Wren), taken with the 80~200/f4 Vario-Elmar and 2x converter, on the 
>Canon 20D at ISO 3200... with no exposure compensation.
>
>This 'control' shot was "developed" with Silkypix, with identical 
>parameters as the two above. 
>
>All three were converted from RAW to .TIF files with Silkypix, and then 
>to .jpg files in PS7.  All three had the unsharp mask (131%, 0.2 pixel 
>Radius and 0 Threshold) applied.  No other image manipulation of any 
>kind (other than to add copyright notices) has been done.  No noise 
>reduction software of any kind has been used on any of these shots.
>
>The large files are all in excess of 1mb, and may cause long download 
>times for dial-up users.  (Sorry!)  And a screen resolution of 1024x768 
>will make life easier.
>
>Noise is most visible in the background areas of a photo where large, 
>out of focus areas exist.  All three shots meet this requirement, though 
>the background colours do change a bit.  I'm sorry, Jerry, but this is 
>not as scientific as either you or I would like, but it's the best I 
>could do, from photos at hand.  I think it still tells a valid story!
>
>I make no claims about superior noise levels. Certainly, the DM-R at ISO 
>1600 is not a usable camera.  However, to my eye, both the shots at the 
>*effective* ISOs of 1600 and 3200 are noticeably superior to the Canon 
>at ISO 3200.   Moreover, I think all three (which could all be further 
>improved with Neat Image or Noise Ninja) have less noise than film at 
>the same ISO!
>
>All of this fallderall can be seen at: 
>http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/Noise.htm
>
>Once again... Nomex suit on... Kevlar vest in place.
>
>You take a look.  You tell me what you see.
>
>Cheers!
>
>  
>


------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
    http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
    //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/

Other related posts: