Canon 5D MKII

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
33 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Canon 5D MKII

Greg Voisan
Found this on http://www.kenrockwell.com

He is talking about a Canon 5D MKII

What do you think of this?

Image Size

No one needs 21MP. All it does is slow everything and clog your hard drive.

Try shooting your 5D Mark II at its M (11MP) or S (5MP) settings. If you look at your images at 100%, you'll see that the lower resolution shots are sharper pixel-by-pixel!

When I'm photographing family and friends, I shoot at SMALL JPG. Even SMALL is good enough for great 20x30" prints.

The smaller-sized images out of the 5D Mark II are spectacular. They are much, much sharper and cleaner than images from cameras on which that is their native resolution. When you start with over 20MP, it looks pretty good if you use all those to make 11MP or 5MP.

Why? Because they use less, or no, Bayer interpolation. No digital camera really resolves its rated resolution; they cheat and interpolate up, so at 100% at its rated resolution, no digital camera image is as sharp as a true scan from film.

At the 5MP setting, you have 100% R, G and B pixels, exactly as if you were using a Sigma Foveon sensor. If Sigma was selling this, they'd sell the 5MP (S) setting as if it were 15MP (also a lie).

What this means is that the lower resolution settings actually pack away lot more detail than you think. The S (5MP) setting of the 5D Mark II is a lot sharper than any 5MP camera.

M looks almost as good as L for the same reason.

If you're testing lenses, sure, shoot at L, but for everything else, try the settings for yourself, You'll probably get what you need at the smaller settings. For instance, the 11MP setting of the 5D Mark II has way more detail than any of the 12MP (native) Nikon cameras.

The resolution advantage of the 5D Mark II is obvious, even at lower settings. Try them.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Canon 5D MKII

Mark D. Fink
Well, my interest is piqued! I'll have to give this a try this weekend. Too
bad he didn't post images from his tests.

Mark

www.studio360.pro
www.northernlight.net
www.virtual-travels.com
www.pinnacle-vr.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of gregoryv92821
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 11:42 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Canon 5D MKII
>
> Found this on http://www.kenrockwell.com
>
> He is talking about a Canon 5D MKII
>
> What do you think of this?
>
> Image Size
>
> No one needs 21MP. All it does is slow everything and clog your hard
> drive.
>
> Try shooting your 5D Mark II at its M (11MP) or S (5MP) settings. If you
> look at your images at 100%, you'll see that the lower resolution shots
> are sharper pixel-by-pixel!
>
> When I'm photographing family and friends, I shoot at SMALL JPG. Even
> SMALL is good enough for great 20x30" prints.
>
> The smaller-sized images out of the 5D Mark II are spectacular. They are
> much, much sharper and cleaner than images from cameras on which that is
> their native resolution. When you start with over 20MP, it looks pretty
> good if you use all those to make 11MP or 5MP.
>
> Why? Because they use less, or no, Bayer interpolation. No digital camera
> really resolves its rated resolution; they cheat and interpolate up, so at
> 100% at its rated resolution, no digital camera image is as sharp as a
> true scan from film.
>
> At the 5MP setting, you have 100% R, G and B pixels, exactly as if you
> were using a Sigma Foveon sensor. If Sigma was selling this, they'd sell
> the 5MP (S) setting as if it were 15MP (also a lie).
>
> What this means is that the lower resolution settings actually pack away
> lot more detail than you think. The S (5MP) setting of the 5D Mark II is a
> lot sharper than any 5MP camera.
>
> M looks almost as good as L for the same reason.
>
> If you're testing lenses, sure, shoot at L, but for everything else, try
> the settings for yourself, You'll probably get what you need at the
> smaller settings. For instance, the 11MP setting of the 5D Mark II has way
> more detail than any of the 12MP (native) Nikon cameras.
>
> The resolution advantage of the 5D Mark II is obvious, even at lower
> settings. Try them.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> --
>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Canon 5D MKII

Keith Davison-2
In reply to this post by Greg Voisan
> Try shooting your 5D Mark II at its M (11MP) or S (5MP) settings. If you look at your images at
> 100%, you'll see that the lower resolution shots are sharper pixel-by-pixel!

Does the 5D MkII use pixel binning at the lower resolutions, or does it just not sample the
unused pixels?

Keith D
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Canon 5D MKII

Greg Voisan
In reply to this post by Greg Voisan
Keith.  Let is know how it goes.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Canon 5D MKII

Sacha Griffin
In reply to this post by Greg Voisan
This sounded really dumb so I tested it.

http://www.seeit360.com/stupidtytest.jpg

 

It IS complete nonsense.

Though interestingly, there was little difference from s2 and s1 raw.

 

Tested with a 50mm prime, manually focused. 100% crop full size raw, others
resized to match.

 

Conclusion, the different raw files are just lower resolution, period and
Ken Rockwell is probably the Glenn Beck of photographers.

 

Best Regards,

 

Sacha Griffin

Southern Digital Solutions LLC  - Atlanta, Georgia

 <http://www.seeit360.com/> http://www.seeit360.com

 <http://twitter.com/SeeIt360> http://twitter.com/SeeIt360

 <http://www.facebook.com/SeeIt360> http://www.facebook.com/SeeIt360

IM:  <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email]

Office: 404-551-4275

 

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of gregoryv92821
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 11:42 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Canon 5D MKII

 

 

Found this on http://www.kenrockwell.com

He is talking about a Canon 5D MKII

What do you think of this?

Image Size

No one needs 21MP. All it does is slow everything and clog your hard drive.

Try shooting your 5D Mark II at its M (11MP) or S (5MP) settings. If you
look at your images at 100%, you'll see that the lower resolution shots are
sharper pixel-by-pixel!

When I'm photographing family and friends, I shoot at SMALL JPG. Even SMALL
is good enough for great 20x30" prints.

The smaller-sized images out of the 5D Mark II are spectacular. They are
much, much sharper and cleaner than images from cameras on which that is
their native resolution. When you start with over 20MP, it looks pretty good
if you use all those to make 11MP or 5MP.

Why? Because they use less, or no, Bayer interpolation. No digital camera
really resolves its rated resolution; they cheat and interpolate up, so at
100% at its rated resolution, no digital camera image is as sharp as a true
scan from film.

At the 5MP setting, you have 100% R, G and B pixels, exactly as if you were
using a Sigma Foveon sensor. If Sigma was selling this, they'd sell the 5MP
(S) setting as if it were 15MP (also a lie).

What this means is that the lower resolution settings actually pack away lot
more detail than you think. The S (5MP) setting of the 5D Mark II is a lot
sharper than any 5MP camera.

M looks almost as good as L for the same reason.

If you're testing lenses, sure, shoot at L, but for everything else, try the
settings for yourself, You'll probably get what you need at the smaller
settings. For instance, the 11MP setting of the 5D Mark II has way more
detail than any of the 12MP (native) Nikon cameras.

The resolution advantage of the 5D Mark II is obvious, even at lower
settings. Try them.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Canon 5D MKII

Mark D. Fink
Sacha,


Thanks for saving me the testing!

 

Mark

 

www.northernlight.net

www.virtual-travels.com

 <http://www.pinnacle-vr.com/> www.pinnacle-vr.com

  _____  

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of Sacha Griffin
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 12:27 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: RE: [PanoToolsNG] Canon 5D MKII

 






This sounded really dumb so I tested it.

http://www.seeit360.com/stupidtytest.jpg

 

It IS complete nonsense.

Though interestingly, there was little difference from s2 and s1 raw.

 

Tested with a 50mm prime, manually focused. 100% crop full size raw, others
resized to match.

 

Conclusion, the different raw files are just lower resolution, period and
Ken Rockwell is probably the Glenn Beck of photographers.

 

Best Regards,

 

Sacha Griffin

Southern Digital Solutions LLC  - Atlanta, Georgia

 <http://www.seeit360.com/> http://www.seeit360.com

 <http://twitter.com/SeeIt360> http://twitter.com/SeeIt360

 <http://www.facebook.com/SeeIt360> http://www.facebook.com/SeeIt360

IM:  <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email]

Office: 404-551-4275

 

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of gregoryv92821
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 11:42 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Canon 5D MKII

 

 

Found this on http://www.kenrockwell.com

He is talking about a Canon 5D MKII

What do you think of this?

Image Size

No one needs 21MP. All it does is slow everything and clog your hard drive.

Try shooting your 5D Mark II at its M (11MP) or S (5MP) settings. If you
look at your images at 100%, you'll see that the lower resolution shots are
sharper pixel-by-pixel!

When I'm photographing family and friends, I shoot at SMALL JPG. Even SMALL
is good enough for great 20x30" prints.

The smaller-sized images out of the 5D Mark II are spectacular. They are
much, much sharper and cleaner than images from cameras on which that is
their native resolution. When you start with over 20MP, it looks pretty good
if you use all those to make 11MP or 5MP.

Why? Because they use less, or no, Bayer interpolation. No digital camera
really resolves its rated resolution; they cheat and interpolate up, so at
100% at its rated resolution, no digital camera image is as sharp as a true
scan from film.

At the 5MP setting, you have 100% R, G and B pixels, exactly as if you were
using a Sigma Foveon sensor. If Sigma was selling this, they'd sell the 5MP
(S) setting as if it were 15MP (also a lie).

What this means is that the lower resolution settings actually pack away lot
more detail than you think. The S (5MP) setting of the 5D Mark II is a lot
sharper than any 5MP camera.

M looks almost as good as L for the same reason.

If you're testing lenses, sure, shoot at L, but for everything else, try the
settings for yourself, You'll probably get what you need at the smaller
settings. For instance, the 11MP setting of the 5D Mark II has way more
detail than any of the 12MP (native) Nikon cameras.

The resolution advantage of the 5D Mark II is obvious, even at lower
settings. Try them.

 








Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Canon 5D MKII

Hans-74
In reply to this post by Sacha Griffin


--- In [hidden email], "Sacha Griffin" <sachagriffin@...> wrote:

>
> This sounded really dumb so I tested it.
>
> http://www.seeit360.com/stupidtytest.jpg
>
>  
>
> It IS complete nonsense.
>
> Though interestingly, there was little difference from s2 and s1 raw.
>
>  
>
> Tested with a 50mm prime, manually focused. 100% crop full size raw, others
> resized to match.
>
>  
>
> Conclusion, the different raw files are just lower resolution, period and
> Ken Rockwell is probably the Glenn Beck of photographers.

Did you not know that?

I remember his first nonsense article , must be 10 years ago when he tried to proof that shooting Jpg  was just as good as Raw.

Hans




>
>  
>
> Best Regards,
>
>  
>
> Sacha Griffin
>
> Southern Digital Solutions LLC  - Atlanta, Georgia
>
>  <http://www.seeit360.com/> http://www.seeit360.com
>
>  <http://twitter.com/SeeIt360> http://twitter.com/SeeIt360
>
>  <http://www.facebook.com/SeeIt360> http://www.facebook.com/SeeIt360
>
> IM:  <mailto:sachagriffin007@...> sachagriffin007@...
>
> Office: 404-551-4275
>
>  
>
>  
>
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of gregoryv92821
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 11:42 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Canon 5D MKII
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Found this on http://www.kenrockwell.com
>
> He is talking about a Canon 5D MKII
>
> What do you think of this?
>
> Image Size
>
> No one needs 21MP. All it does is slow everything and clog your hard drive.
>
> Try shooting your 5D Mark II at its M (11MP) or S (5MP) settings. If you
> look at your images at 100%, you'll see that the lower resolution shots are
> sharper pixel-by-pixel!
>
> When I'm photographing family and friends, I shoot at SMALL JPG. Even SMALL
> is good enough for great 20x30" prints.
>
> The smaller-sized images out of the 5D Mark II are spectacular. They are
> much, much sharper and cleaner than images from cameras on which that is
> their native resolution. When you start with over 20MP, it looks pretty good
> if you use all those to make 11MP or 5MP.
>
> Why? Because they use less, or no, Bayer interpolation. No digital camera
> really resolves its rated resolution; they cheat and interpolate up, so at
> 100% at its rated resolution, no digital camera image is as sharp as a true
> scan from film.
>
> At the 5MP setting, you have 100% R, G and B pixels, exactly as if you were
> using a Sigma Foveon sensor. If Sigma was selling this, they'd sell the 5MP
> (S) setting as if it were 15MP (also a lie).
>
> What this means is that the lower resolution settings actually pack away lot
> more detail than you think. The S (5MP) setting of the 5D Mark II is a lot
> sharper than any 5MP camera.
>
> M looks almost as good as L for the same reason.
>
> If you're testing lenses, sure, shoot at L, but for everything else, try the
> settings for yourself, You'll probably get what you need at the smaller
> settings. For instance, the 11MP setting of the 5D Mark II has way more
> detail than any of the 12MP (native) Nikon cameras.
>
> The resolution advantage of the 5D Mark II is obvious, even at lower
> settings. Try them.
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Canon 5D MKII

AYRTON - avi
In reply to this post by Greg Voisan
Sorry Gregory

but

wtf ???
:-)

All this text below makes no sense at all  :-)


A




On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 12:42 PM, gregoryv92821 <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Found this on http://www.kenrockwell.com
>
> He is talking about a Canon 5D MKII
>
> What do you think of this?
>
> Image Size
>
> No one needs 21MP. All it does is slow everything and clog your hard drive.
>
> Try shooting your 5D Mark II at its M (11MP) or S (5MP) settings. If you
> look at your images at 100%, you'll see that the lower resolution shots are
> sharper pixel-by-pixel!
>
> When I'm photographing family and friends, I shoot at SMALL JPG. Even
> SMALL is good enough for great 20x30" prints.
>
> The smaller-sized images out of the 5D Mark II are spectacular. They are
> much, much sharper and cleaner than images from cameras on which that is
> their native resolution. When you start with over 20MP, it looks pretty
> good if you use all those to make 11MP or 5MP.
>
> Why? Because they use less, or no, Bayer interpolation. No digital camera
> really resolves its rated resolution; they cheat and interpolate up, so at
> 100% at its rated resolution, no digital camera image is as sharp as a true
> scan from film.
>
> At the 5MP setting, you have 100% R, G and B pixels, exactly as if you
> were using a Sigma Foveon sensor. If Sigma was selling this, they'd sell
> the 5MP (S) setting as if it were 15MP (also a lie).
>
> What this means is that the lower resolution settings actually pack away
> lot more detail than you think. The S (5MP) setting of the 5D Mark II is a
> lot sharper than any 5MP camera.
>
> M looks almost as good as L for the same reason.
>
> If you're testing lenses, sure, shoot at L, but for everything else, try
> the settings for yourself, You'll probably get what you need at the smaller
> settings. For instance, the 11MP setting of the 5D Mark II has way more
> detail than any of the 12MP (native) Nikon cameras.
>
> The resolution advantage of the 5D Mark II is obvious, even at lower
> settings. Try them.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> --
>
>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Canon 5D MKII

Sacha Griffin
In reply to this post by Hans-74
Not really, I stopped browsing photography sites years ago when there was an
apparent diminishment of return of value vs time spent.

There's far too much other stuff to do and the best way to learn something
is to just freaking use your own equipment and test it. I barely facebook,
or google plus these days. Rather be working or outside.

 

s

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of Hans
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 1:04 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Canon 5D MKII

 

Did you not know that?

I remember his first nonsense article , must be 10 years ago when he tried
to proof that shooting Jpg was just as good as Raw.

Hans



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Canon 5D MKII

Greg Voisan
In reply to this post by AYRTON - avi
Ayrton:

I agree. Didn't make sense to me either, that is why I asked the group.
Thought maybe I was reading it wrong.

:)



On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:09 AM, AYRTON <[hidden email]> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Sorry Gregory
>
> but
>
> wtf ???
> :-)
>
> All this text below makes no sense at all  :-)
>
>
> A
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 12:42 PM, gregoryv92821 <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> Found this on http://www.kenrockwell.com
>>
>> He is talking about a Canon 5D MKII
>>
>> What do you think of this?
>>
>> Image Size
>>
>> No one needs 21MP. All it does is slow everything and clog your hard
>> drive.
>>
>> Try shooting your 5D Mark II at its M (11MP) or S (5MP) settings. If you
>> look at your images at 100%, you'll see that the lower resolution shots are
>> sharper pixel-by-pixel!
>>
>> When I'm photographing family and friends, I shoot at SMALL JPG. Even
>> SMALL is good enough for great 20x30" prints.
>>
>> The smaller-sized images out of the 5D Mark II are spectacular. They are
>> much, much sharper and cleaner than images from cameras on which that is
>> their native resolution. When you start with over 20MP, it looks pretty
>> good if you use all those to make 11MP or 5MP.
>>
>> Why? Because they use less, or no, Bayer interpolation. No digital camera
>> really resolves its rated resolution; they cheat and interpolate up, so at
>> 100% at its rated resolution, no digital camera image is as sharp as a true
>> scan from film.
>>
>> At the 5MP setting, you have 100% R, G and B pixels, exactly as if you
>> were using a Sigma Foveon sensor. If Sigma was selling this, they'd sell
>> the 5MP (S) setting as if it were 15MP (also a lie).
>>
>> What this means is that the lower resolution settings actually pack away
>> lot more detail than you think. The S (5MP) setting of the 5D Mark II is a
>> lot sharper than any 5MP camera.
>>
>> M looks almost as good as L for the same reason.
>>
>> If you're testing lenses, sure, shoot at L, but for everything else, try
>> the settings for yourself, You'll probably get what you need at the smaller
>> settings. For instance, the 11MP setting of the 5D Mark II has way more
>> detail than any of the 12MP (native) Nikon cameras.
>>
>> The resolution advantage of the 5D Mark II is obvious, even at lower
>> settings. Try them.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>
>  
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Canon 5D MKII

luca vascon-3
In reply to this post by Greg Voisan
Well, unscientific.
Ken Rockwell is respectable from many other point of views, but the article
lacks of consistency.
As many photographers do, he starts from a specific point of view.
We, panobrained, are not common photographers, period. We have to learn
things, commoners would never ever like to know they exist.

First, we CARE about pixels, cos our customers wil pixel-peep our images.
And they will do it on a computer screen.
We are maniac lens testers, couse it makes the difference, for us.
In the not-so-common case we print, we do print tremendous amount of
infotrmations that will be seen ar magnifying glass distance. And we do
know any aspect about it. And try to go to print a gigapixel image in an
unspecialized place...

So, in first place bayerpattern IS IN THE CAMERA PROJECT, from the AA
filter to the specific RAW code. Bayerpattern IS an interpolation, but it
is a "good" one, and getting rid of it is pointless. Sigma Foveon can be
interpolated to reach very good levels of resolution and detail, it
benefits from lack of AAfilter, it stands over common Cmos that have 3
times the official resolution, but only in some circumstances. As does the
old dear Fuji S5 sensor. Prices are speedness, ISO noise, compelled deraw
workflows.

Bottom line, 5D pixels are 21 good, very good million of good quality
pixels.
:-)

Il giorno 16 marzo 2012 16:42, gregoryv92821 <[hidden email]> ha
scritto:

> Found this on http://www.kenrockwell.com
>
> He is talking about a Canon 5D MKII
>
> What do you think of this?
>
> Image Size
>
> No one needs 21MP. All it does is slow everything and clog your hard drive.
>
> Try shooting your 5D Mark II at its M (11MP) or S (5MP) settings. If you
> look at your images at 100%, you'll see that the lower resolution shots are
> sharper pixel-by-pixel!
>
> When I'm photographing family and friends, I shoot at SMALL JPG. Even
> SMALL is good enough for great 20x30" prints.
>
> The smaller-sized images out of the 5D Mark II are spectacular. They are
> much, much sharper and cleaner than images from cameras on which that is
> their native resolution. When you start with over 20MP, it looks pretty
> good if you use all those to make 11MP or 5MP.
>
> Why? Because they use less, or no, Bayer interpolation. No digital camera
> really resolves its rated resolution; they cheat and interpolate up, so at
> 100% at its rated resolution, no digital camera image is as sharp as a true
> scan from film.
>
> At the 5MP setting, you have 100% R, G and B pixels, exactly as if you
> were using a Sigma Foveon sensor. If Sigma was selling this, they'd sell
> the 5MP (S) setting as if it were 15MP (also a lie).
>
> What this means is that the lower resolution settings actually pack away
> lot more detail than you think. The S (5MP) setting of the 5D Mark II is a
> lot sharper than any 5MP camera.
>
> M looks almost as good as L for the same reason.
>
> If you're testing lenses, sure, shoot at L, but for everything else, try
> the settings for yourself, You'll probably get what you need at the smaller
> settings. For instance, the 11MP setting of the 5D Mark II has way more
> detail than any of the 12MP (native) Nikon cameras.
>
> The resolution advantage of the 5D Mark II is obvious, even at lower
> settings. Try them.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> --
>
>
>
>


--
Luca Vascon.

www.nuovostudio.it
www.officinepanottiche.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Canon 5D MKII

DaveSphere
In reply to this post by Greg Voisan
For panoramas I nearly always shoot Sraw1 in my day-to-day work.  Saves a little bit of card space and processing time, and it makes essentially no difference compared to full-resolution raw processed panos when displayed fullscreen at the zoom levels I specify in the viewer.

When I shot these pole panos in December for TheDaily.com I used Sraw2.  They needed them delivered the same morning so processing speed took priority.  Canon 15mm F2.8 fisheye, 6 around at about 60-degree camera orientation shooting 5MP files instead of 21.  http://panaviz.com/scenic-oahu/pearl-harbor-70th/

One of the downsides of shooting Sraw is that certain raw processors won't work.  I haven't tested them all but do know that DxO Optics doesn't do Sraw files.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Canon 5D MKII

Erik Krause
Administrator
In reply to this post by Sacha Griffin
Am 16.03.2012 17:27, schrieb Sacha Griffin:
> This sounded really dumb so I tested it.
>
> http://www.seeit360.com/stupidtytest.jpg
>
> It IS complete nonsense.

It is complete nonsense indeed, if you upsize the images. Ken never said
that an upsized small image is as good or better than one at higher
resolution. He said that an image shot at 11MP with the 5DII is better
than one shot with a camera with 11MP native resolution.

And of course all this applies to conventional photography, where you
print your images. There is little point to print images beyond 300 ppi,
simply because your eyes won't resolve more. 5DII medium size has 4080
pixels the long side, which gives a 13 inch (34cm) wide image.

If you view an image from the recommended viewing distance (= image
diagonal) - this is the distance where you get the same perspective as
your normal lens and what most DoF calculators assume - 6MP is enough,
no matter how large you print.

However, for interactive panoramas where you can zoom until pixel size
you need the pixels, of course...

--
Erik Krause
http://www.erik-krause.de
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Canon 5D MKII

Sacha Griffin
I just compared the images downsizing as well.

There was a clear advantage to the larger images over the s1 and s2 in
contrast and detail.

 

Best Regards,

 

Sacha Griffin

Southern Digital Solutions LLC  - Atlanta, Georgia

 <http://www.seeit360.com/> http://www.seeit360.com

 <http://twitter.com/SeeIt360> http://twitter.com/SeeIt360

 <http://www.facebook.com/SeeIt360> http://www.facebook.com/SeeIt360

IM:  <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email]

Office: 404-551-4275

 

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of Erik Krause
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 3:55 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Canon 5D MKII

 

 

Am 16.03.2012 17:27, schrieb Sacha Griffin:
> This sounded really dumb so I tested it.
>
> http://www.seeit360.com/stupidtytest.jpg
>
> It IS complete nonsense.

It is complete nonsense indeed, if you upsize the images. Ken never said
that an upsized small image is as good or better than one at higher
resolution. He said that an image shot at 11MP with the 5DII is better
than one shot with a camera with 11MP native resolution.

And of course all this applies to conventional photography, where you
print your images. There is little point to print images beyond 300 ppi,
simply because your eyes won't resolve more. 5DII medium size has 4080
pixels the long side, which gives a 13 inch (34cm) wide image.

If you view an image from the recommended viewing distance (= image
diagonal) - this is the distance where you get the same perspective as
your normal lens and what most DoF calculators assume - 6MP is enough,
no matter how large you print.

However, for interactive panoramas where you can zoom until pixel size
you need the pixels, of course...

--
Erik Krause
http://www.erik-krause.de

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Canon 5D MKII

Bostjan Burger
In reply to this post by Erik Krause
Exactly.

Bostjan


________________________________
 From: Erik Krause <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 8:54 PM
Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Canon 5D MKII
 

 
Am 16.03.2012 17:27, schrieb Sacha Griffin:
> This sounded really dumb so I tested it.
>
> http://www.seeit360.com/stupidtytest.jpg
>
> It IS complete nonsense.

It is complete nonsense indeed, if you upsize the images. Ken never said
that an upsized small image is as good or better than one at higher
resolution. He said that an image shot at 11MP with the 5DII is better
than one shot with a camera with 11MP native resolution.

And of course all this applies to conventional photography, where you
print your images. There is little point to print images beyond 300 ppi,
simply because your eyes won't resolve more. 5DII medium size has 4080
pixels the long side, which gives a 13 inch (34cm) wide image.

If you view an image from the recommended viewing distance (= image
diagonal) - this is the distance where you get the same perspective as
your normal lens and what most DoF calculators assume - 6MP is enough,
no matter how large you print.

However, for interactive panoramas where you can zoom until pixel size
you need the pixels, of course...

--
Erik Krause
http://www.erik-krause.de


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

AW: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Canon 5D MKII

ptgroup
In reply to this post by Erik Krause
How about a downsized in the RAW-converter then ?
I would think that this one would also be as good or even better as a native 11MP one due
to the different kind of micro-lenses, low noise capability, better grad. curve etc etc.
but i don´t have the chance to test this.
 
ciao
mike
http://www.virtugraf.de <http://www.virtugraf.de/>
----------------------------
360° VR Fotografie:
http://www.360de.de <http://www.360de.de/>

NEU: Abstrakte Fotografie unter:
http://www.abstraktfoto.de <http://www.abstraktfoto.de/>
-----------------------------
Aktuelles vom Virtugrafen:
http://virtugraf.wordpress.com <http://virtugraf.wordpress.com/>  
 

  _____  

Von: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] Im Auftrag von Erik Krause
Gesendet: Freitag, 16. März 2012 20:55
An: [hidden email]
Betreff: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Canon 5D MKII


 

Am 16.03.2012 17:27, schrieb Sacha Griffin:
> This sounded really dumb so I tested it.
>
> http://www.seeit360.com/stupidtytest.jpg
>
> It IS complete nonsense.

It is complete nonsense indeed, if you upsize the images. Ken never said
that an upsized small image is as good or better than one at higher
resolution. He said that an image shot at 11MP with the 5DII is better
than one shot with a camera with 11MP native resolution.

And of course all this applies to conventional photography, where you
print your images. There is little point to print images beyond 300 ppi,
simply because your eyes won't resolve more. 5DII medium size has 4080
pixels the long side, which gives a 13 inch (34cm) wide image.

If you view an image from the recommended viewing distance (= image
diagonal) - this is the distance where you get the same perspective as
your normal lens and what most DoF calculators assume - 6MP is enough,
no matter how large you print.

However, for interactive panoramas where you can zoom until pixel size
you need the pixels, of course...

--
Erik Krause
http://www.erik-krause.de




  _____  

I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter <http://www.spamfighter.com/len> .
SPAMfighter has removed 3221 of my spam emails to date.

Do you have a slow PC? <http://www.spamfighter.com/SLOW-PCfighter?cid=sigen>  Try free scan!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AW: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Canon 5D MKII

Sacha Griffin
The full resolution was superior in both upsizing and downsizing. Sraw's
benefits are space and speed of processing not quality.

Sacha Griffin
Southern Digital Solutions LLC  - Atlanta, Georgia
http://www.seeit360.com
http://twitter.com/SeeIt360
http://www.facebook.com/panoramas/
IM: [hidden email]
Office: 404-551-4275

On Mar 17, 2012, at 12:01 PM, ptgroup <[hidden email]> wrote:



How about a downsized in the RAW-converter then ?
I would think that this one would also be as good or even better as a
native 11MP one due
to the different kind of micro-lenses, low noise capability, better grad.
curve etc etc.
but i don´t have the chance to test this.

ciao
mike
http://www.virtugraf.de
----------------------------
360° VR Fotografie:
http://www.360de.de

NEU: Abstrakte Fotografie unter:
http://www.abstraktfoto.de
-----------------------------
Aktuelles vom Virtugrafen:
http://virtugraf.wordpress.com


 ------------------------------
*Von:* [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] *Im
Auftrag von *Erik Krause
*Gesendet:* Freitag, 16. März 2012 20:55
*An:* [hidden email]
*Betreff:* [PanoToolsNG] Re: Canon 5D MKII



Am 16.03.2012 17:27, schrieb Sacha Griffin:
> This sounded really dumb so I tested it.
>
> http://www.seeit360.com/stupidtytest.jpg
>
> It IS complete nonsense.

It is complete nonsense indeed, if you upsize the images. Ken never said
that an upsized small image is as good or better than one at higher
resolution. He said that an image shot at 11MP with the 5DII is better
than one shot with a camera with 11MP native resolution.

And of course all this applies to conventional photography, where you
print your images. There is little point to print images beyond 300 ppi,
simply because your eyes won't resolve more. 5DII medium size has 4080
pixels the long side, which gives a 13 inch (34cm) wide image.

If you view an image from the recommended viewing distance (= image
diagonal) - this is the distance where you get the same perspective as
your normal lens and what most DoF calculators assume - 6MP is enough,
no matter how large you print.

However, for interactive panoramas where you can zoom until pixel size
you need the pixels, of course...

--
Erik Krause
http://www.erik-krause.de

------------------------------
I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter <http://www.spamfighter.com/len>.
SPAMfighter has removed 3221 of my spam emails to date.

Do you have a slow PC?
<http://www.spamfighter.com/SLOW-PCfighter?cid=sigen>Try free scan!

 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

AW: AW: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Canon 5D MKII

ptgroup
thanks Sache - so there is no need to downsize anways
(which i can´t though :)))
ciao
mike

http://www.virtugraf.de <http://www.virtugraf.de/>
----------------------------
360° VR Fotografie:
http://www.360de.de <http://www.360de.de/>

NEU: Abstrakte Fotografie unter:
http://www.abstraktfoto.de <http://www.abstraktfoto.de/>
-----------------------------
Aktuelles vom Virtugrafen:
http://virtugraf.wordpress.com <http://virtugraf.wordpress.com/>  
 

  _____  

Von: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] Im Auftrag von Sacha Griffin
Gesendet: Samstag, 17. März 2012 17:08
An: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: AW: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Canon 5D MKII


 


The full resolution was superior in both upsizing and downsizing. Sraw's benefits are space and
speed of processing not quality.


Sacha Griffin
Southern Digital Solutions LLC  - Atlanta, Georgia
http://www.seeit360.com
http://twitter.com/SeeIt360
http://www.facebook.com/panoramas/
IM: [hidden email]
Office: 404-551-4275

On Mar 17, 2012, at 12:01 PM, ptgroup <[hidden email]> wrote:



 



How about a downsized in the RAW-converter then ?
I would think that this one would also be as good or even better as a native 11MP one due
to the different kind of micro-lenses, low noise capability, better grad. curve etc etc.
but i don´t have the chance to test this.
 
ciao
mike
http://www.virtugraf.de <http://www.virtugraf.de/>
----------------------------
360° VR Fotografie:
http://www.360de.de <http://www.360de.de/>

NEU: Abstrakte Fotografie unter:
http://www.abstraktfoto.de <http://www.abstraktfoto.de/>
-----------------------------
Aktuelles vom Virtugrafen:
http://virtugraf.wordpress.com <http://virtugraf.wordpress.com/>  
 

  _____  

Von: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] Im Auftrag von Erik Krause
Gesendet: Freitag, 16. März 2012 20:55
An: [hidden email]
Betreff: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Canon 5D MKII


 

Am 16.03.2012 17:27, schrieb Sacha Griffin:
> This sounded really dumb so I tested it.
>
> http://www.seeit360.com/stupidtytest.jpg
>
> It IS complete nonsense.

It is complete nonsense indeed, if you upsize the images. Ken never said
that an upsized small image is as good or better than one at higher
resolution. He said that an image shot at 11MP with the 5DII is better
than one shot with a camera with 11MP native resolution.

And of course all this applies to conventional photography, where you
print your images. There is little point to print images beyond 300 ppi,
simply because your eyes won't resolve more. 5DII medium size has 4080
pixels the long side, which gives a 13 inch (34cm) wide image.

If you view an image from the recommended viewing distance (= image
diagonal) - this is the distance where you get the same perspective as
your normal lens and what most DoF calculators assume - 6MP is enough,
no matter how large you print.

However, for interactive panoramas where you can zoom until pixel size
you need the pixels, of course...

--
Erik Krause
http://www.erik-krause.de



  _____  

I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter <http://www.spamfighter.com/len> .
SPAMfighter has removed 3221 of my spam emails to date.

Do you have a slow PC? <http://www.spamfighter.com/SLOW-PCfighter?cid=sigen>  Try free scan!





  _____  

I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter <http://www.spamfighter.com/len> .
SPAMfighter has removed 3221 of my spam emails to date.

Do you have a slow PC? <http://www.spamfighter.com/SLOW-PCfighter?cid=sigen>  Try free scan!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Canon 5D MKII

Paul Fretheim
In reply to this post by Greg Voisan
"Why? Because they use less, or no, Bayer interpolation. No digital
camera really resolves its rated resolution; they cheat and interpolate
up, so at 100% at its rated resolution, no digital camera image is as
sharp as a true scan from film."

Surely there is also interpolation in film scanners. In many ways a
digital camera is just a differently organized scanner which scans the
real world instead of film. Ken is just getting carried away with his
own rhetoric again. I think he also argues that the Nikon 7000 is the
best camera in the world and you don't need anything better than that.

Paul Fretheim
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Canon 5D MKII

Keith Davison-2
> Surely there is also interpolation in film scanners. In many ways a
> digital camera is just a differently organized scanner which scans the real
> world instead of film.

There will only be interpolation in a film scanner if you chose a resolution which is not the
true optical resolution of the scanner, or a resolution which is not a full divisor of the optical
resolution.

Most film scanners do not use Beyer filters, the scan array is generally a triple "stripe" of
R,G and B filtered sensors, some older scanners have only one "stripe" of sensors and
make three passes with colour-filtered illumination (eg, Agfa Vision 35).

Apart from large format scanning backs (and scanning panoramic cameras!!!), most
camera sensors do not "scan" the real world at shutter speeds lower than their flash syncs,
the whole image is captured in one go. It could be argued that at shutter speeds higher
than the flash sync, the moving shutter slit does scan the sensor, in a fashion.

Generally scanning involves using a small sensor to repeatedly sample small areas of a
subject and assemble the output into a much larger "image". Some high-end pre-press
scanners were actually X-Y scanners, a small square sensor being moved in both
directions to obtain the scan.

KeithD



12