Funny you should post this report, Jaume. Few days ago I had very
similar experience with my K-7 - misconfigured the flash and it did not
fire in rather dimly lit room. I had to apply a bit of Topaz Denoise
(but again, I fancy it now, 'cause it is my most recent 'toy') and the
picture was
From my limited understanding, the higher dynamic range of the K-5
indicates a lot more headroom. I may be totally wrong about this.
--
MaritimTim
http://maritimtim.blogspot.com/
2010/11/7 Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com:
Funny you should post this report, Jaume. Few days ago I had very
Tim, this is my understanding as well. However, I want to know how much
of it goes to the dark areas (see the 9.5 EV pull out from /almost/
total blackness example) and how much of it goes to the bright areas
(remains to be seen). In particular K-7 seems to have somewhat deeper DR
in dark
I believe that more headroom in the dark areas is in the nature of the
sensor wells.
When a cup is full, you can't pour more water into it. If you try to,
you pours over. I think it is almost as simple as that.
In the dark areas, on the other hand, the information will be obscured
by noise, but
Tim Øsleby maritim...@gmail.com wrote:
Higher dynamic range gives us opportunity to expose more
conservatively without loosing information. I think this is what gives
us more headroom in practical use.
Exactly.
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
Blog :
On 11/7/2010 2:58 PM, Tim Øsleby wrote:
I believe that more headroom in the dark areas is in the nature of the
sensor wells.
When a cup is full, you can't pour more water into it. If you try to,
you pours over. I think it is almost as simple as that.
In the dark areas, on the other hand, the
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/7/2010 2:58 PM, Tim Øsleby wrote:
I believe that more headroom in the dark areas is in the nature of the
sensor wells.
When a cup is full, you can't pour more water into it. If you try to,
you pours over. I think
Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
What you say, Tim, makes perfect sense. But outside of Pentaxia, there
are cameras and sensors that have more headroom in the bright areas.
There is no way of extending the range beyond the point where all bits
are set to 1. Not with Pentax nor with any
Adam, Ralf, if I understand you correctly, it means that overexposure
blinkies of both my camera(s) and LightRoom actually start blinking not
at pixel value of 255 but somewhat prior to that. And then, you and also
Adam say that whatever the minus exposure compensation I am dialing in
in
Boris,
The blinkies in the camera are with respect to the JPEG preview, not
the RAW file. They blink at 255 (maximum 8 bit value) but that 255 is
mapped to an arbitrary value on the actual scale from 0 to 16383 with
16383 being the actual maximum value. The blinkies in LR are with
respect to the
This fortunate Spanish K-5 owner tried to recover a picture where the flash
didn't fire when it was supposed to do (it wasn't charged).
They challenged the camera for fun and were surprised by the results:
http://www.pentaxeros.com/forum/index.php?topic=37916.0
--
PDML
On 6 November 2010 16:47, Jaume Lahuerta jlah...@yahoo.com wrote:
This fortunate Spanish K-5 owner tried to recover a picture where the flash
didn't fire when it was supposed to do (it wasn't charged).
They challenged the camera for fun and were surprised by the results:
Miserere wrote:
On 6 November 2010 16:47, Jaume Lahuerta jlah...@yahoo.com wrote:
This fortunate Spanish K-5 owner tried to recover a picture where the flash
didn't fire when it was supposed to do (it wasn't charged).
They challenged the camera for fun and were surprised by the results:
On Nov 6, 2010, at 5:36 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Miserere wrote:
On 6 November 2010 16:47, Jaume Lahuerta jlah...@yahoo.com wrote:
This fortunate Spanish K-5 owner tried to recover a picture where
the flash
didn't fire when it was supposed to do (it wasn't charged).
They challenged the
Jaume Lahuerta wrote on Sat, 06 Nov 2010 13:47:29 -0700
This fortunate Spanish K-5 owner tried to recover a picture where the flash
didn't fire when it was supposed to do (it wasn't charged).
They challenged the camera for fun and were surprised by the results:
Beleive me, Falk knows what he's talking about.
2010/11/6 Mark Roberts m...@robertstech.com:
Miserere wrote:
On 6 November 2010 16:47, Jaume Lahuerta jlah...@yahoo.com wrote:
This fortunate Spanish K-5 owner tried to recover a picture where the flash
didn't fire when it was supposed to do (it
On Nov 6, 2010, at 7:45 PM, Thibouille wrote:
Beleive me, Falk knows what he's talking about.
Good to know. However, it's so high tech, I don't know what he's talking
about:-)).
Paul
2010/11/6 Mark Roberts m...@robertstech.com:
Miserere wrote:
On 6 November 2010 16:47, Jaume Lahuerta
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 8:25 PM, paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
On Nov 6, 2010, at 7:45 PM, Thibouille wrote:
Beleive me, Falk knows what he's talking about.
Good to know. However, it's so high tech, I don't know what he's talking
about:-)).
Paul
He's speaking pure
P N Stenquist wrote:
On Nov 6, 2010, at 5:36 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Miserere wrote:
But for the record, DxO Mark is still worthless.
Here's an interesting piece that seems to say the same thing, albeit
more diplomatically :)
On 6 November 2010 19:39, Jim King jamesk8...@mac.com wrote:
Jaume Lahuerta wrote on Sat, 06 Nov 2010 13:47:29 -0700
This fortunate Spanish K-5 owner tried to recover a picture where the flash
didn't fire when it was supposed to do (it wasn't charged).
They challenged the camera for fun and
On Nov 6, 2010, at 9:42 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
P N Stenquist wrote:
On Nov 6, 2010, at 5:36 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Miserere wrote:
But for the record, DxO Mark is still worthless.
Here's an interesting piece that seems to say the same thing, albeit
more diplomatically :)
On Nov 6, 2010, at 9:42 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
P N Stenquist wrote:
On Nov 6, 2010, at 5:36 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Miserere wrote:
But for the record, DxO Mark is still worthless.
Here's an interesting piece that seems to say the same thing, albeit
more diplomatically :)
On 6 November 2010 22:11, paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
On re-reading his post, I come away with the feeling that the confusion I
feel is more the result of clumsy rhetoric rather than technical complexity.
His message is hidden behind misplaced modifiers and contorted
Of course, there is that piece of data that is a supposed 10 stop
underexposure save of an image. Graphs are are nice but that image is
impressive if its true.
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Miserere miser...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 November 2010 22:11, paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net
Miserere wrote:
On 6 November 2010 22:11, paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
On re-reading his post, I come away with the feeling that the confusion I
feel is more the result of clumsy rhetoric rather than technical complexity.
His message is hidden behind misplaced modifiers and
On Nov 6, 2010, at 10:34 PM, Miserere wrote:
On 6 November 2010 22:11, paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
On re-reading his post, I come away with the feeling that the confusion I
feel is more the result of clumsy rhetoric rather than technical complexity.
His message is
26 matches
Mail list logo
