Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > SD10 sample file No 2 (dull but detailed)

Reply
Thread Tools

SD10 sample file No 2 (dull but detailed)

 
 
David Kilpatrick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-26-2004
Since the small clip of a sample of saleable work (glowing sik poppy
c/u) I posted yesterday got much flack for showing vintage lens
aberrations and a simple, bright colour palette here's something totally
un-useful and of no commercial or pictorial merit, but giving a decent
idea of what the SD10 does which Bayer filtered sensor cameras find hard
to handle.

http://www.freelancephotographer.co....2x2268SD10.jpg

This is taken in dull lighting, of a subject on well-worn wildlife park
grass in April - even the subject is a bit tatty too; it's a moving
target, and the lens is the $99 (? 99 pounds here) Sigma digital cheapie
55-200mm used at approx 87mm focal length, at f7.1 aperture, 1/200th.

The jpeg is about 2.8mb, sorry, but its the straight 1512x2268 full size
(3.4 megapixel) SD10 file, saved in AdobeRGB profiled space, at
Photoshop Level 12 - maximum. The import was via Photoshop CS Raw
plugin, and the parameters were:

White balance - 'Daylight'
No adjustment to exposure, black, white or contrast at all
Detail sharpness, luminance smoothing and colour smoothing all set to zero
No correction for lens colour aberrations at all

In other words, about as straight and unmodified an import as the plug
in allows. The picture can be ajusted, sharpened etc to make a radical
difference but of course it's still a boring shot of a peacock just like
dozens I get sent every year for magazine competitions. Ten a penny and
I have no idea why I am just the same as every other photographer and
can't resist shooting the tatty-looking park bird!

If you check the CAMERA EXIF information, you'll find everything confirmed.

Please do examine the detail of the individual feathers, which runs at
every possible angle, and is held down to pixel level. There are no
areas of softness or loss of visual information, and despite a slight
overall softening to this fine detail (the result of converting with
sharpness set to zero) there is a good textural rendering across the
whole plane of sharp focus.

The shot was taken at ISO 400, which is about the limit for reasonable
levels of noise freedom with the SD10, and at this setting has no real
granularity or noise but shows some colour degradation most noticeable
in the zone where the peacock's belly moves into shadow.

David

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Brian C. Baird
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-26-2004
#1: Not very sharp. The peacock's head should be in focus. Not really
a camera issue.

#2: Loss of detail in blue areas. This is a camera issue.

#3: Not really any sharper than a Digital Rebel, D70 or any other 6 MP
Bayer sensor camera.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Alan D-W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-26-2004

"David Kilpatrick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:cbjs8c$mg$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Since the small clip of a sample of saleable work (glowing sik poppy
> c/u) I posted yesterday got much flack for showing vintage lens
> aberrations and a simple, bright colour palette here's something totally
> un-useful and of no commercial or pictorial merit, but giving a decent
> idea of what the SD10 does which Bayer filtered sensor cameras find hard
> to handle.
>
> http://www.freelancephotographer.co....2x2268SD10.jpg
>

But it's fuzzy, lacking in detail, and out of focus!

>
> Please do examine the detail of the individual feathers, which runs at


I detect little or no useful detail in the feathers, and his "headgear",
whatever it's called, is just a black blur.


> every possible angle, and is held down to pixel level. There are no
> areas of softness or loss of visual information, and despite a slight
> overall softening to this fine detail (the result of converting with
> sharpness set to zero) there is a good textural rendering across the
> whole plane of sharp focus.


I detect no plane of sharp focus. Indeed, looking at the grass, the focus
trend is towards us, implying that the plane of focus is closer than any
part of the picture, and is thus out of shot.

>
> The shot was taken at ISO 400, which is about the limit for reasonable
> levels of noise freedom with the SD10, and at this setting has no real
> granularity or noise but shows some colour degradation most noticeable
> in the zone where the peacock's belly moves into shadow.


And there's some sort of halo around every detail, particularly noticeable
around its white face patches, but also noticeable around many of the blue
"eyes" in his tail. The lower part of his tail, immediately above his body,
appears flat and 2-D, almost as though it itself was a picture. It has no
snap.

You are doing nothing for the Sigma cause by showing these pictures. Any one
of any of the Bayer cameras I've ever owned would have done a better job of
this creature, and I include the old 2MP Kodak DC280. I AM trying to be
objective here but if this is an example of "what the SD10 does which Bayer
filtered sensor cameras find hard to handle" then I regret that you have
chosen an extremely bad example.

>
> David
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-26-2004
In message <cbjs8c$mg$(E-Mail Removed)>,
David Kilpatrick <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>The shot was taken at ISO 400, which is about the limit for reasonable
>levels of noise freedom with the SD10, and at this setting has no real
>granularity or noise but shows some colour degradation most noticeable
>in the zone where the peacock's belly moves into shadow.


I can see green and magenta patches in the neck, too.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-26-2004
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Brian C. Baird <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>#2: Loss of detail in blue areas. This is a camera issue.


After seeing many Sigma SD images, I am thoroughly convinced that either
in the camera's RAW save, or in the SPP conversion, low-contrast details
are suppressed. That would explain the low level of luminance noise and
low-contrast detail.

Something like this, where the input and output are the luminance
contrast between any given pixel, and the average of its neighbors:

o ****
*
u *
*
t *
*
p *
*
u *
**
t ***
*****

i n p u t


--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
David Kilpatrick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-26-2004


Brian C. Baird wrote:

> #1: Not very sharp. The peacock's head should be in focus. Not really
> a camera issue.
>
> #2: Loss of detail in blue areas. This is a camera issue.
>
> #3: Not really any sharper than a Digital Rebel, D70 or any other 6 MP
> Bayer sensor camera.


The exact point of focus is behind the peacock's head and in front of
the tail but depth of field is adequate, and 'not very sharp' doesn't
really mean much in a totally unsharpened digital file. The rim round
the eye, the nostril edge on the beak etc, are all as well-defined as
could be expected. One a couple of other shots the focus is dead on the
head of the bird but this just loses some edge from the tail, and I've
also got one focusing precisely on the tail but that is even worse -
having a genuinely out of focus head in front of a sharp tail looks
quite wrong. The bird was trotting quite rapidly at 1/200th was
absolutely necessary to catch a shot, as was a focus-lock-hold shooting
technique.

Not sure what you mean by loss of detail in the blue areas. There is
feather detail visible at single pixel level in the file; maybe this is
a colour management issue at your end. I would not expect to see any
detail in the turquoise eyes on the tail, as this would be well below
single pixel level for the fine overlapping feather blades.

I would love to see any Bayer sensor camera producing the same
consistent fine detail image structure (forget 'sharpness' - that is
easily acheived by USM on any file).

Have a look at this:

http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/1DII-SD10.jpg

this is a pixel-level section of Canon EOS 1D-II image on 70-200mm f2.8,
setting ISO 200 - for some reason the EXIF data is not present in the
original, which comes from one of our magazine test photographers

compared to a pixel level-clip of the SD10 file at ISO 400.

The 1DII image is of course 8 megapixels compared to the SD10 3.43
megapixels, and size for size, would require scaling down to 65 per cent
size to be the same repro size on the printed page - or the SD10 image
would need enlarging 1.52 X.

I find it hard to distinguish real detail in the 1D MkII image, but it's
from a top quality camera JPEG and not a raw file, so sharpening has
been applied along with processing; the SD10 file is a top quality JPEG,
but from raw file processing. There's no doubt that at pixel level the
ISO 200 from 1D MkII is considerably more noisy than the SD10 at 400,
but it's doubtful whether this would show up in a print.

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
Phil Wheeler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-26-2004


Alan D-W wrote:

> "David Kilpatrick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:cbjs8c$mg$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>Since the small clip of a sample of saleable work (glowing sik poppy
>>c/u) I posted yesterday got much flack for showing vintage lens
>>aberrations and a simple, bright colour palette here's something totally
>>un-useful and of no commercial or pictorial merit, but giving a decent
>>idea of what the SD10 does which Bayer filtered sensor cameras find hard
>>to handle.
>>
>>http://www.freelancephotographer.co....2x2268SD10.jpg
>>

>
> But it's fuzzy, lacking in detail, and out of focus!
>


Also dull. The peacocks where I live have vibrant colors. But perhaps
this is just an inferior (dull and lacking in detail) bird.

I agree. Such shots, added to the incessant technically inaccurate
posts, are not doing Sigma any favors.

Phil

 
Reply With Quote
 
David Kilpatrick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-26-2004


Alan D-W wrote:

> "David Kilpatrick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:cbjs8c$mg$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>Since the small clip of a sample of saleable work (glowing sik poppy
>>c/u) I posted yesterday got much flack for showing vintage lens
>>aberrations and a simple, bright colour palette here's something totally
>>un-useful and of no commercial or pictorial merit, but giving a decent
>>idea of what the SD10 does which Bayer filtered sensor cameras find hard
>>to handle.
>>
>>http://www.freelancephotographer.co....2x2268SD10.jpg
>>

>
> But it's fuzzy, lacking in detail, and out of focus!
>
>


This is silly. What do you do - shoot JPEGs on Normal sharpness or
something?

Photoshop CS:

Saturation + 20%
(S-curve - I would apply a slight one but I can't define it for you)
apply - Unsharp Mask 400 per cent
Radius 0.4 pixels
Levels - 4

Then study the picture.

I purposely put up an unprocessed image, because I assumed that folk
here were familiar with the concept. I also put up an unexceptional one
in terms of lighting and dimensional lift - things which give false
impressions of 'snap' and sharpness - but which had an excess of fine
detail of low contrast.

I was not setting out to do a Preddy and flag up some grossly
oversharpened, saturated image. I put up a subject where most digital
cameras - and your Kodak DC280 among them - produce a mess.

David

 
Reply With Quote
 
Phil Wheeler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-26-2004


David Kilpatrick wrote:
>
> I was not setting out to do a Preddy


"Do a Preddy": A new dictionary entry!

 
Reply With Quote
 
bagal
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-26-2004
Fantastic image David!

I suppose any1 may press a button on a camera - but capturing the essence of
a moment is an aesthetic very fes (IMHO) have

One thing I would like to ask if I may - can I possibly download the iamhe
to hard drive?

I would like to scrutinise the image and prefer obtaining your permission
first.

If you say the no-word may I reassure you I will respect, observe and uphold
your decision.

Mind you, part of me extends sympathy to you. I feel you may be a bit like
meat going to the slaughter once the Canon-Posse get their heads out of
their arts Maybe not - time will tell.

Kind regards as always

das B

ps - know what you mean about the D07 - every time I see an image choose
however hard I try the first thing that shouts out is sensor burn out

d b
"David Kilpatrick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:cbjs8c$mg$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Since the small clip of a sample of saleable work (glowing sik poppy
> c/u) I posted yesterday got much flack for showing vintage lens
> aberrations and a simple, bright colour palette here's something totally
> un-useful and of no commercial or pictorial merit, but giving a decent
> idea of what the SD10 does which Bayer filtered sensor cameras find hard
> to handle.
>
> http://www.freelancephotographer.co....2x2268SD10.jpg
>
> This is taken in dull lighting, of a subject on well-worn wildlife park
> grass in April - even the subject is a bit tatty too; it's a moving
> target, and the lens is the $99 (? 99 pounds here) Sigma digital cheapie
> 55-200mm used at approx 87mm focal length, at f7.1 aperture, 1/200th.
>
> The jpeg is about 2.8mb, sorry, but its the straight 1512x2268 full size
> (3.4 megapixel) SD10 file, saved in AdobeRGB profiled space, at
> Photoshop Level 12 - maximum. The import was via Photoshop CS Raw
> plugin, and the parameters were:
>
> White balance - 'Daylight'
> No adjustment to exposure, black, white or contrast at all
> Detail sharpness, luminance smoothing and colour smoothing all set to zero
> No correction for lens colour aberrations at all
>
> In other words, about as straight and unmodified an import as the plug
> in allows. The picture can be ajusted, sharpened etc to make a radical
> difference but of course it's still a boring shot of a peacock just like
> dozens I get sent every year for magazine competitions. Ten a penny and
> I have no idea why I am just the same as every other photographer and
> can't resist shooting the tatty-looking park bird!
>
> If you check the CAMERA EXIF information, you'll find everything

confirmed.
>
> Please do examine the detail of the individual feathers, which runs at
> every possible angle, and is held down to pixel level. There are no
> areas of softness or loss of visual information, and despite a slight
> overall softening to this fine detail (the result of converting with
> sharpness set to zero) there is a good textural rendering across the
> whole plane of sharp focus.
>
> The shot was taken at ISO 400, which is about the limit for reasonable
> levels of noise freedom with the SD10, and at this setting has no real
> granularity or noise but shows some colour degradation most noticeable
> in the zone where the peacock's belly moves into shadow.
>
> David
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
looking for asp.net sample with vb.net backend sample is there one? Jake ASP .Net 0 02-09-2006 10:44 PM
Sigma SD10 sample clip JPEG + MORE David Kilpatrick Digital Photography 33 06-26-2004 04:41 PM
SD10: a raw file fact about White Balance David Kilpatrick Digital Photography 33 05-30-2004 03:12 PM
Sigma SD10 Fringing Mike Engles Digital Photography 54 11-05-2003 03:25 PM
New Canon SD10 looks nice but... dsco Digital Photography 2 09-19-2003 04:38 AM



Advertisments