or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by DESuserIGN

  I loved mine and wish I could get another. People who dislike the 17" MBPs just don't understand that it's not really a laptop. It's a portable full featured desktop with a big display. If you needed to get serious work done and also needed the ability to relocate at will, it was a great solution. The 15" MBPs will always feel a bit confining to me.
  I get it. My vote is for larger sensor cells. I prefer this approach philosophically (the nikon D-2x was just an example for illustration.)   Why? 1. large sensor cells -> more of the sensor surface can be light sensitive area 2. large sensor cells -> less noise 3. large sensor cells -> less vignetting 4. large sensor cells -> higher quality/$
  My vote is for big pixels (sensors.) Less noise and vignetting. I would still take a 2.7 MP Nikon D-1 (OK, a 12 MP D-2x  ;-)  ) over many newer bigger pixel DSLRs.  (but that wasn't the question, I suppose.)   Both strategies have their advantages though. Either strategy may be superior for a particular hardware combinations. Comparison of actual results is probably the only way to decide. Philosophically though, I tend to favor a strategy that pursues results with...
Oh sure. If you go to a 16 bit tiff there is no qualitative difference.    I was assuming you meant processing it into an 8 bit TIFF. (In downsampling info would be lost.)   But once you have made all of your decisions on settings for exposure, color temp, setting the curves, retouching etc., there's no real reason to remain  at 16 bits for final output. Those extra bits are really only important if you still plan to make adjustments to the image.   Do digital labs accept...
  I'm no expert on bokeh, but I think DOF isolation and bokeh refer to essentially the same thing, but people talk about the esthetic quality of the bokeh which as you point out depends on specifics of the lens and the diaphragm. Have you ever noticed that during an eclipse that sunlight passing through the tree leaves casts little highlights (whatever you call the opposite of a shadow) in a crescent shape that perfectly mimics the crescent of the eclipsed sun? You would...
  Nope, it's not even theoretically reversible. The finest information, essentially the least significant figures, are tossed and that information is lost forever and cannot be reconstructed. It's a lossy transformation, just like a JPEG but not such a severe pruning.   [You can't reconstruct the original "Tale of Two Cities" from the Reader's Digest Condensed Version of the book. (Probably anyone under 40 has no idea what a Reader's Digest Condensed Version of a book is!)]
Yes, "extra information," in that the TIFF has a larger file size. But it contains much less real and usable image information than the smaller RAW file.   The TIFF contains processed,image information. A nice abbreviation of the image (Readers Digest condensed version of the book.) The RAW file contains all the information. A full recording of the image as shot. (It's the full original novel, as written by the author.)
  This method probably has to do with information theory, I suppose. Many image processing methods have been explored, but this apparently provides the best result in terms of maximum high quality information produced from the RAW sensor values.
One would think so, but each sensor maps 1 to 1 with a pixel in the finished image (there are a few extra sensors at the edge.) In post processing (in camera or in RAW conversion) each pixel's values are constructed from the measured value of its corresponding sensor and the other missing values from nearby sensors. 
  Yeah, I didn't mean to imply you were being deceptive, just that it sounds like the TIFF is untouched.   Your development analogy is a good one. TIFF files can't be redeveloped. It's like sending it to Walgreens to be developed. They do it how they want. The nice thing with RAW is that you can develop the negative however you want — and more importantly, you can redevelop it however you want.
New Posts  All Forums: