Author Topic: Sony's new "fixed mirror" camera (Read 5583 times)

travfar · « **Reply #75 on:** September 03, 2010, 06:59:47 AM »

Quote from: adash on September 03, 2010, 04:07:22 AM

In-camera sharpening is still a photograph in my point of view, as is in-camera NR, in-camera brightness/contrast, in-camera gamma. In-camera HDR, in-camera "twilight" are not, as they are produced from more than one exposure and can not be compared to pictures, taken with a single exposure on another camera. If I take four ISO3200 photos in a burst on my e-p1 and unite them later in software, should I call that "ISO 12800"?

No. If you take 4 picts with your PEN and unite them. Then it would still be ISO 3200. Both single and twilight photos are ISO 3200. IMO, a twilight shot is a photograph and can be compared with a single exposure on another camera. Regardless of whether it's twilight mode or the NR built into every camera, it's just processing of the raw data to improve the image. You can think of twilight mode as super sampling which is the same as say processing a 20MP image into a 2MP image. It will have better noise reduction and better low light perfomance due to binning. Or you can think of a twilight shot as a 1 sec exposure but with better motion blur control. Either way, it's still a photograpy.

travfar · « **Reply #76 on:** September 03, 2010, 07:04:53 AM »

Quote from: Panther on September 03, 2010, 04:56:46 AM

Adash
From what I understand, the ISO is the same but the variable is in white balance and exposure compensation

That's HDR. Twilight is just the same shot over and over to use for temporal averaging.

Panther · « **Reply #77 on:** September 03, 2010, 07:10:54 AM »

Quote from: travfar on September 03, 2010, 07:04:53 AM

That's HDR. Twilight is just the same shot over and over to use for temporal averaging.

Not sure your data is correct travfar.....

Okay,
Here's what I found online about Sony's hand held twilight mode:

Quote

Handheld Twilight mode takes up to six photos at different exposure settings in rapid-fire fashion, and then overlays them to generate a smooth, noise-free low-light image.

lisandra · « **Reply #78 on:** September 03, 2010, 09:51:29 AM »

the idea is that noise is random and what it does is it takes rthe noiseless portions of the 6 images and puts them into the final image.
Why isn't it a normal picture? whats a normal picture anyway? the jpeg files are the same size and the shutter speed is the same. Unless you remember you took it in twilight, theres no way you could know browsing trough them. I agree with panther, if this isn't a normal picture then setting a +2 noise reduction or grainy black and white isn't normal either...

lisandra · « **Reply #79 on:** September 03, 2010, 09:54:03 AM »

Quote from: Panther on September 02, 2010, 07:32:49 PM

Lisandra,
No guarantees in the near future but it's added to the "list" of shots to do...

come on man! it doesn't have to be something poetic, shoot your closet or something, anything!! it wont take more than ten minutes to do and upload, pleeeease, I'm dying here!

adash · « **Reply #80 on:** September 03, 2010, 10:06:22 AM »

Quote

Regardless of whether it's twilight mode or the NR built into every camera, it's just processing of the raw data to improve the image.

I disagree! This is the image data ( constant in each frame) and random noise ( random from frame to frame too) taken up to six times from the sensor and processed together. This is like having a camera with six sensors and six lenses, you would be getting the same information in excess and you could interpolate that in order to get one frame. You should not compare that with a single frame from another camera.

Quote

If you take 4 picts with your PEN and unite them. Then it would still be ISO 3200.

Yes, but noise will correspond to ISO800 or even less. If the original frames were taken with negative exposure compensation, I could then push exposure in software and get what it equivalent of ISO 12800 with the noise of ISO 3200....

Quote

I agree with panther, if this isn't a normal picture then setting a +2 noise reduction or grainy black and white isn't normal either...

It is! The data was transferred from the sensor in one pass. There are no extra exposures to eliminate the noise from. Only one single shutter actuation....ops, I am sorry, this thing does not even have a shutter.

travfar · « **Reply #81 on:** September 03, 2010, 10:11:59 AM »

Quote from: lisandra on September 03, 2010, 09:51:29 AM

the idea is that noise is random and what it does is it takes rthe noiseless portions of the 6 images and puts them into the final image.

Noise is random, but it's not taking the noiseless portions. All parts of a digital image have noise. It's just what comes from using a digital sensor. It's averaging the noise together temporally. Trust me. I've done this for a living for over 20 years. It's noise reduction 101. There are other ways to do NR, but are more computationally expensive and well... doesn't work nearly as well. Temporal averaging is easy, cheap and works really well for static subjects. Harder to do say taking a picture of a jet flying by at 600mph, but not undoable using a thin plate spline.

http://earth.esa.int/applications/data_util/SARDOCS/spaceborne/Radar_Courses/Radar_Course_III/temporal_averaging.htm

lisandra · « **Reply #82 on:** September 03, 2010, 10:31:13 AM »

Quote from: adash on September 03, 2010, 10:06:22 AM

Quote
Regardless of whether it's twilight mode or the NR built into every camera, it's just processing of the raw data to improve the image.
I disagree! This is the image data ( constant in each frame) and random noise ( random from frame to frame too) taken up to six times from the sensor and processed together. This is like having a camera with six sensors and six lenses, you would be getting the same information in excess and you could interpolate that in order to get one frame. You should not compare that with a single frame from another camera.

I get what you're saying, but you're kinda trying to say it's immoral to compare the two, at the end of the day you have a picture of the scene, I have a picture of the scene, and mine is cleaner at the same ISO, see what I mean? maybe you shouldn't compare them, but that doesn't mean that people won't. It doesn't really matter how it got where it is, what matters is how it looks like. To me it's like the people that tell me that post processed photos aren't real. Actually it's kinda like comparing two photos at the same ISO from different sized sensors, it's unfair, but it's like everything works.

adash · « **Reply #83 on:** September 03, 2010, 10:54:22 AM »

You have a point too. But if I told you that a picture was taken at ISO 12800 with an E-P1, you would not believe me, would you?
Nevertheless, I saw these Sony ultrazooms sell here for about $50-$60 less than the E-PL1 single zoom kit. Which of the two would you get?

travfar · « **Reply #84 on:** September 03, 2010, 10:57:55 AM »

Quote from: lisandra on September 03, 2010, 10:31:13 AM

Quote from: adash on September 03, 2010, 10:06:22 AM
Quote
Regardless of whether it's twilight mode or the NR built into every camera, it's just processing of the raw data to improve the image.
I disagree! This is the image data ( constant in each frame) and random noise ( random from frame to frame too) taken up to six times from the sensor and processed together. This is like having a camera with six sensors and six lenses, you would be getting the same information in excess and you could interpolate that in order to get one frame. You should not compare that with a single frame from another camera.
I get what you're saying, but you're kinda trying to say it's immoral to compare the two, at the end of the day you have a picture of the scene, I have a picture of the scene, and mine is cleaner at the same ISO, see what I mean? maybe you shouldn't compare them, but that doesn't mean that people won't. It doesn't really matter how it got where it is, what matters is how it looks like. To me it's like the people that tell me that post processed photos aren't real. Actually it's kinda like comparing two photos at the same ISO from different sized sensors, it's unfair, but it's like everything works.

I agree. In the end a picture is a picture. Even using two different cameras with the same sensor, there will be different processing. So is it unfair to compare a picture from a Pentax KX to that from a Sony A550 even though they use the same sensor but different processing?

Sure, you can take a bunch of shots using any camera and make your own "twilight" mode picture using photoshop. But the big thing about the Sony line is that you don't have to. To most users, they don't even know that it's taking a bunch of shots and averaging them together. All they know is that they push the shutter and they take a great looking shot. In the end, that's all that matters.

adash · « **Reply #85 on:** September 03, 2010, 11:02:32 AM »

Quote

All they know is that they push the shutter and they take a great looking shot. In the end, that's all that matters.

They may also omit the shutter next time....the camera will also know when to take a picture.

lisandra · « **Reply #86 on:** September 04, 2010, 02:22:49 PM »

Quote from: adash on September 03, 2010, 11:02:32 AM

Quote
All they know is that they push the shutter and they take a great looking shot. In the end, that's all that matters.
They may also omit the shutter next time....the camera will also know when to take a picture.

come on..don't be like that

(you know, like this

). It's a cool feature that makes your life easier, even if it's aimed at the super noobs.

adash · « **Reply #87 on:** September 06, 2010, 12:05:31 AM »

I am like this

I admit. That's because some brands make cameras and some make software, which they load in portable computers with lenses.

Panther · « **Reply #88 on:** September 06, 2010, 05:00:55 AM »

Quote from: adash on September 06, 2010, 12:05:31 AM

I am like this I admit. That's because some brands make cameras and some make software, which they load in portable computers with lenses.

What's your take on Panasonic then?

adash · « **Reply #89 on:** September 06, 2010, 05:12:18 AM »

What's my take on Panasonic?

Panther · « **Reply #90 on:** September 06, 2010, 05:19:04 AM »

Yes ....
My interpretation (which could be wrong) of your previous comment was that you feel that Sony isn't a real photographic company hence my question/response about Panasonic....

adash · « **Reply #91 on:** September 06, 2010, 06:41:52 AM »

Well, I feel irritated by in-lens IS, and no in-body IS. And Panasonic m4/3 is not accessible where I live. I have to buy from abroad and have no warranty, etc.
And no, Sony is not a real photographic company. At least in my view. Sony aXXX feel okay as they are based on the ex-Minolta designs.

Panther · « **Reply #92 on:** September 06, 2010, 07:09:45 AM »

I understand your frustration adash..... $:-\$
But like it or not, Sony is making the other companies re-think their approach.......(Credit to micro four thirds in this arena also)

adash · « **Reply #93 on:** September 06, 2010, 07:37:49 AM »

Of course competition will bring prices down and innovation up....but I don't yet like the competing product.

Panther · « **Reply #94 on:** September 06, 2010, 07:43:08 AM »

Personally,
If I could merge certain aspects of them both together into one camera, I'd be thrilled!

adash · « **Reply #95 on:** September 06, 2010, 10:13:23 AM »

It would be challenging to actually build a camera yourself, don't you think so?

Panther · « **Reply #96 on:** September 06, 2010, 10:32:35 AM »

Quote from: adash on September 06, 2010, 10:13:23 AM

It would be challenging to actually build a camera yourself, don't you think so?

Pinhole camera = nope
Digital SLR = yep

cosinaphile · « **Reply #97 on:** September 06, 2010, 10:40:51 AM »

i think all the hdr like program routines in cameras today are half baked affairs , i little understand the process they use beyond the simplisitic descriptions they provide in the instruction booklet/cd,

if i was to impliment a hdr mode of my own design it would cope with 3-6 stops
of dynamic range enhancement instead of the measly 2-3 they do now

a hdr landscape that identified sky by ev or watwr by ev and then gave a real
saturated sky with foreground exposed for better detail and not the cloying darkness we get when shooting sunset and other difficult exposure situiations

the computer can recognize over and under exposure quite easily , witnedd the annoying blinking mode in the pens to tell of this imagine if the camera couls selectively expose those areas in a way that made sense

the hdr mode of my samsung is lousy in this regard i cannot het it to drop the exposure in a bright sky , one place where it would make sense , it would be good if they had 3 or 4 hdrr routines to meet different exposure situiations maybe a indoor available light mode and an outdoor sunset mode , ive never met an hdr mode that i respect

adash · « **Reply #98 on:** September 06, 2010, 11:02:35 AM »

Quote

Pinhole camera = nope
Digital SLR = yep

Yeah....those soda can experiments don't quite intrigue me enough....

lisandra · « **Reply #99 on:** September 06, 2010, 11:05:37 AM »

Panny corrects for barrel distortion and CA in camera and silkypix auto corrects that in the RAW files. Is panny not a real photographic company either?
I cant be mad if a camera does what I'm gonna end up doing (and wasting my time in the process) anyway in post processing.
When I want control over every detail (a paid job for example) I shoot RAW; but when I'm shooting just for fun and WANT to have fun I want a camera that can deliver on it's own, without me having to worry about if its gonna turn out clean enough in PP. I'm not gonna shoot RAW to end up with a 30mb file eating space in my HDD that I'm never gonna use for anything. Scratch that, I'll probably use it to show it to my friends, post it in a web gallery and maybe a print or two. And for things like that, a 8mb JPEG will do just fine. To me we're living in days of glory; you have full control when you want it/need it, and ridiculously good JPEG quality when you just wanna shoot. People shot only RAW because JPEGs weren't up to snuff (remember that..?), but now they are, how do they arrive at that quality? I don't care, I just care that they do, that I have more shooting options, and I'm getting my money's worth.

Author Topic: Sony's new "fixed mirror" camera (Read 5583 times)

Panther

Panther

Panther

Panther

Panther

Panther

Related Topics

Recent Topics

Recent Gallery