 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / May 2008D300 shoots like D3 !!!
If you do studio work or low light, not moving objects and you want the highest possible resolution, dynamic and tonal range, check this out: http://www.nikon-box.com/MultiX/ Much better than any normal way of shooting with the D300 ! If you're happy with the results and save 3000,- dollars because you realize that now all you need is the D300 instead of the D3, feel free to donate me some of all that saved money. ;-)) Maybe I can finally buy that lens...  SignatureSosumi >If you do studio work or low light, not moving objects and you want the >highest possible resolution, dynamic and tonal range, check this out: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >that now all you need is the D300 instead of the D3, feel free to donate me >some of all that saved money. ;-)) Maybe I can finally buy that lens... Welcome to the party! Works with any camera. See thread "Noise Reduction By Image Averaging" <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/b9d1df059f 100e26/d6b00a2ac821298f#d6b00a2ac821298f> SignatureBest regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) >>If you do studio work or low light, not moving objects and you want the >>highest possible resolution, dynamic and tonal range, check this out: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > See thread "Noise Reduction By Image Averaging" > <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/b9d1df059f 100e26/d6b00a2ac821298f#d6b00a2ac821298f> This is totally different from what I do. No software is used! All in camera, except the NEF to JPG conversion. It's not averaging, but multiple exposure with autogain plus bracketing. But still, it's also a good idea. Never heard of it before. SignatureSosumi >> Welcome to the party! Works with any camera. >> See thread "Noise Reduction By Image Averaging" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >camera, except the NEF to JPG conversion. >It's not averaging, but multiple exposure with autogain plus bracketing. That's still image averaging, albeit in camera instead of in post-processing. SignatureBest regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) > >> Welcome to the party! Works with any camera. > >> See thread "Noise Reduction By Image Averaging" <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/b9d1d f059f100e26/d6b00a2ac821298f#d6b00a2ac821298f> > >This is totally different from what I do. No software is used! All in > >camera, except the NEF to JPG conversion. > >It's not averaging, but multiple exposure with autogain plus bracketing. > > That's still image averaging, albeit in camera instead of in > post-processing. the same way the K10D is doing it ? >> >> Welcome to the party! Works with any camera. >> >> See thread "Noise Reduction By Image Averaging" [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > the same way the K10D is doing it ? And others and strangely does not work so well for sport so just maybe I will have to keep the D3. > And others and strangely does not work so well for sport so just maybe I > will have to keep the D3. ??? >> And others and strangely does not work so well for sport so just maybe I >> will have to keep the D3. > > ??? Metaphorically speaking, or is that retorically? >>> And others and strangely does not work so well for sport so just maybe I >>> will have to keep the D3. >> >> ??? > > Metaphorically speaking, or is that retorically? wishfully? >>>> And others and strangely does not work so well for sport so just maybe >>>> I will have to keep the D3. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > wishfully? Nah, the new Pentax looks nice though, the cost to replace all my glass is more than I need to spend although I could be swayed when I retire with all that cash to burn, what about you? The D3's do look very nice! :-) > Nah, the new Pentax looks nice though, the cost to replace all my glass is > more than I need to spend although I could be swayed when I retire with > all that cash to burn, what about you? The D3's do look very nice! :-) I still have a mortgage. :-( >> Nah, the new Pentax looks nice though, the cost to replace all my glass >> is more than I need to spend although I could be swayed when I retire >> with all that cash to burn, what about you? The D3's do look very nice! >> :-) > > I still have a mortgage. :-( All that aside I have a sign in my office that I try to live by as much as I can...... WANT = NEED > Metaphorically speaking, or is that retorically? rhe-tor'i-cal-ly / that spelling courtesy dictionary dot com :-) On Feb 6, 5:53 am, "Pete D" <n...@email.com> wrote: > Metaphorically speaking, or is that retorically? rhe-tor'i-cal-ly / that spelling courtesy dictionary dot com :-) Blow-it-out-your-wahzoo........................ Spelling curtesy me. > On Feb 6, 5:53 am, "Pete D" <n...@email.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Blow-it-out-your-wahzoo........................ Spelling curtesy me. sorry, but wrong again... I do not use yahoo :-) > This is totally different from what I do. No software is used! All in > camera, except the NEF to JPG conversion. > It's not averaging, but multiple exposure with autogain plus bracketing. > But still, it's also a good idea. Never heard of it before. Astrophotographers do it as a matter of course, for years now. >> This is totally different from what I do. No software is used! All in >> camera, except the NEF to JPG conversion. >> It's not averaging, but multiple exposure with autogain plus bracketing. >> But still, it's also a good idea. Never heard of it before. > > Astrophotographers do it as a matter of course, for years now. That's a good trick, since the D300 has only been out for a couple of months now. ;-) >>> This is totally different from what I do. No software is used! All in >>> camera, except the NEF to JPG conversion. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >That's a good trick, since the D300 has only been out for a couple of months >now. ;-) First, learn what the feature is and how it works, as Floyd has explained. Next, the D200 implemented this same thing years ago. Now, maybe you'll learn from your own statements on bracketing in another thread. All this is is automatic averaging with autogain enabled, and just stacked/additive images with it off. Manual stacking/averaging has been done for years. >> Astrophotographers do it as a matter of course, for years now. >That's a good trick, since the D300 has only been out for a couple of months >now. ;-) Not a difficult trick at all, since the technique has been available in other cameras, or by post processing, for years before the D300 was even a gleam in the eye of Nikon. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >This is totally different from what I do. No software is used! All in The software is in the camera, rather than on your computer. It's still software that does it. >camera, except the NEF to JPG conversion. >It's not averaging, but multiple exposure with autogain plus bracketing. It *is* averaging, and it is *not* bracketing. "Autogain" means that it averages the entire set. >But still, it's also a good idea. Never heard of it before. Your comparison to the D3 is nonsense, because the D3 can do exactly the same thing. Except of course the D3 has an FX sensor and higher ISO with less noise... so the results are even better than with the D300. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>This is totally different from what I do. No software is used! All in > > The software is in the camera, rather than on your > computer. It's still software that does it. True, but like everything, software is not the same. Sharpening with NX Capture gives much better results than PS. Besides, now all info is put directly to one single frame, so it saves time too. >>camera, except the NEF to JPG conversion. >>It's not averaging, but multiple exposure with autogain plus bracketing. > > It *is* averaging, and it is *not* bracketing. > > "Autogain" means that it averages the entire set. If it's averaging, then when I make 5 shots with multiple exposure with the *same* exposure, I should get the same result, right? But I don't. The bracketed shots have more detail, less noise and more range. >>But still, it's also a good idea. Never heard of it before. > > Your comparison to the D3 is nonsense, because the D3 > can do exactly the same thing. Except of course the D3 > has an FX sensor and higher ISO with less noise... so > the results are even better than with the D300. Gee whiz! Lighten up! Do I have to put a smiley for every time I'm kidding? SignatureSosumi >> The software is in the camera, rather than on your >> computer. It's still software that does it. > >True, but like everything, software is not the same. Sharpening with NX >Capture gives much better results than PS. The latest versions of PS do excellent sharpening, based on deconvolution. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconvolution#Optics_and_other_imaging> >> It *is* averaging, and it is *not* bracketing. >> >> "Autogain" means that it averages the entire set. > >If it's averaging, then when I make 5 shots with multiple exposure with the >*same* exposure, I should get the same result, right? Wrong. >But I don't. The >bracketed shots have more detail, less noise and more range. Sure -- that's what image averaging is all about. SignatureBest regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) >> It *is* averaging, and it is *not* bracketing. >> >> "Autogain" means that it averages the entire set. Trust that there is *no* bracketing. Each and every image is taken with exactly the same exposure. Otherwise it wouldn't work as well. You'd average in blown highlights and lost shadows... making the result worse than the one shot that was properly exposed. >If it's averaging, then when I make 5 shots with multiple exposure with the >*same* exposure, I should get the same result, right? But I don't. The >bracketed shots have more detail, less noise and more range. Why do think you should get the same result? Whatever, your observation is not correct. What you get is just less noise. The extra detail and the extra range are just side effects of less noise. The reason it works is because light from the scene for any give pixel will be the same each and every time. So the average of a number of images is exactly the same as any one of the images. But noise is randomly distributed, and will have a slightly different distribution with each image. Any pixel that has a high noise component in one image will not have a high noise component in all images. Hence noise will average *lower* in the combined image than the peak noise will be in any of the individual images. If there is less noise, then more detail is visible. That by definition is more dynamic range. >>>But still, it's also a good idea. Never heard of it before. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Gee whiz! Lighten up! Do I have to put a smiley for every time I'm kidding? Obviously you were *not* kidding, as the multiple responses indicate. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >Trust that there is *no* bracketing. Each and every >image is taken with exactly the same exposure. Otherwise >it wouldn't work as well. You'd average in blown highlights >and lost shadows... making the result worse than the one shot >that was properly exposed. Are you sure the camera doesn't do that? Properly done bracketing and combining should yield a HDR image. >The reason it works is because light from the scene for >any give pixel will be the same each and every time. So [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >*lower* in the combined image than the peak noise will >be in any of the individual images. Actually that the amount of noise in a given pixel of a given image is random, and thus will tend to decrease when values are averaged. See <http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/noise-reduction.htm> >If there is less noise, then more detail is visible. >That by definition is more dynamic range. Yes, but not the same as HDR. SignatureBest regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) >>Trust that there is *no* bracketing. Each and every >>image is taken with exactly the same exposure. Otherwise [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Are you sure the camera doesn't do that? Properly done bracketing and >combining should yield a HDR image. It won't if the "combining" is either averaging pixel values with "autogain" circuit or just an additive process, which are the two options available with Nikon cameras. >>The reason it works is because light from the scene for >>any give pixel will be the same each and every time. So [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >random, and thus will tend to decrease when values are averaged. See ><http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/noise-reduction.htm> Not quite. The randomness that counts for averaging is how random different images are for the noise at a given pixel. The fact that different pixels within each image have a random noise distribution is not particularly significant (other than the two characteristics result from the same cause). >>If there is less noise, then more detail is visible. >>That by definition is more dynamic range. > >Yes, but not the same as HDR. Exactly. That's why his statement that he saw more range was not really true. All he saw was less noise. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>>Trust that there is *no* bracketing. Each and every >>>image is taken with exactly the same exposure. Otherwise [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >Exactly. That's why his statement that he saw more >range was not really true. All he saw was less noise. Agreed. SignatureBest regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) >>>Trust that there is *no* bracketing. Each and every >>>image is taken with exactly the same exposure. Otherwise [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Exactly. That's why his statement that he saw more > range was not really true. All he saw was less noise. You guys confuse the crap out of me: In this post you first tell us, that there is less noise, more detail, so that is more dynamic range. Then you say it's not HDR, OK, *higher* dynamic range then? Then you say, I only saw less noise, not more range. Maybe I'm nuts, but it seems at least completely contradictive! What I can tell by searching the net is that at least the tonal range is wider. SignatureSosumi ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.] > "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message >> Welcome to the party! Works with any camera. >> See thread "Noise Reduction By Image Averaging" > This is totally different from what I do. No software is used! All in > camera, except the NEF to JPG conversion. Your camera runs on steam and gears? > It's not averaging, Nikon does (spatial) averaging, at least on longer exposures, even with it's RAW! Astro-guys are regularly bitching and moaning, as that blurring is of course less than perfect for fainter stars. Google for Nikon and "Mode 3" ... And yes, it is averaging. -Wolfgang > If you do studio work or low light, not moving objects and you want the > highest possible resolution, dynamic and tonal range, check this out: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > -- > Sosumi How about something really over the top? Olympus E-510, 50 frames stacked, 1600 ISO, HQ JPEG mode. Done with "Registax" http://www.astronomie.be/registax/ 1 frame: http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/92591393/original 50 frames: http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/92591393/original > > If you do studio work or low light, not moving objects and you want the > > highest possible resolution, dynamic and tonal range, check this out: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > 50 frames:http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/92591393/original OOPS! Here's the 50 frame one!! http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/92591428/original > > > If you do studio work or low light, not moving objects and you want the > > > highest possible resolution, dynamic and tonal range, check this out: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/92591428/original The nice thing about registax is that it also automatically aligns the frames. So I sometimes set my camera to 5fps and take 10-15 severely underexposed handheld shots, which I then stack. The main difficulty I have is that (obviously) I can't see a thing through the viewfinder (since we're talking about an effective ISO in the tens of thousands for each shot), so composition is a bit hit and miss: I've never gotten anything I'd like to print this way, compositionally speaking. A tripod's better if you can use one, you can look at the lcd and adjust if it's too dark to see. > If you do studio work or low light, not moving objects and you want the > highest possible resolution, dynamic and tonal range, check this out: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that now all you need is the D300 instead of the D3, feel free to donate me > some of all that saved money. ;-)) Maybe I can finally buy that lens... It seems to me you're relatively new to the group, so welcome. Don't mind rude jerks like Floyd L. Davidson (who has no sense of humor and a major stick up his a.s). Many of them are good resources, so take what you can and ignore the rest. Regards, Matt Clara -- www.mattclara.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.