Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > curiosity question re: "programmers"/digital cameras

Reply
Thread Tools

curiosity question re: "programmers"/digital cameras

 
 
bruin70@mail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2006
i have a question for anyone in the know....

do camera companies have software programmers who program how their
cameras "see"?,,, therefore the companies with the better programmers
do a better job of analyzing a scene(sharpness, chroma, hue etc etc).

i believe in the creation a movie dvd's, there are programmers who do
lots of things including(for my particular concerns) how sharp the
movie images will be. example, i thought "matrix revolution" has
hideously "programmed" for sharpness.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Joseph Meehan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2006
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> i have a question for anyone in the know....
>
> do camera companies have software programmers who program how their
> cameras "see"?,,, therefore the companies with the better programmers
> do a better job of analyzing a scene(sharpness, chroma, hue etc etc).
>
> i believe in the creation a movie dvd's, there are programmers who do
> lots of things including(for my particular concerns) how sharp the
> movie images will be. example, i thought "matrix revolution" has
> hideously "programmed" for sharpness.


Well .. yes and no. Better is subjective. Also more advanced
cameras allow the user to override the standard programs.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
bruin70@mail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2006

>Joseph Meehan wrote:


> Well .. yes and no. Better is subjective. Also more advanced
> cameras allow the user to override the standard programs.


in comparing cameras,,in comparing images, i went to steve's...and yes,
i understand that the still lifes are taken differently and under
different conditions. but it's all i have to work with unfortunately.


nonetheless the detailing, specifically the orangutan, can be quite
different fronm camera to camera. in the price range,,,i was comparing
the fz30/fujis9000/minolta A200/nikon8700. i greyed scaled the photos.
it turned out to be very close between the fz and the a200,,,but all
four showed detail quite differently. the best,,the fz30, was able to
show detail without a dependence on contrast. it gave me a purer,
cleaner detail. the a200 was very close and the others weren't in the
game.

the other cameras relied on contrast more so they got "halos". so i was
wondering if this was a programming issue, regardless of whether you
can override or not.

too bad the a200 and fz30 are done. so. i'm looking for a refurb or the
fz50.

 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2006
On 10 Aug 2006 18:49:37 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> nonetheless the detailing, specifically the orangutan, can be quite
> different fronm camera to camera. in the price range,,,i was comparing
> the fz30/fujis9000/minolta A200/nikon8700. i greyed scaled the photos.
> it turned out to be very close between the fz and the a200,,,but all
> four showed detail quite differently. the best,,the fz30, was able to
> show detail without a dependence on contrast. it gave me a purer,
> cleaner detail. the a200 was very close and the others weren't in the
> game.
>
> the other cameras relied on contrast more so they got "halos". so i was
> wondering if this was a programming issue, regardless of whether you
> can override or not.
>
> too bad the a200 and fz30 are done. so. i'm looking for a refurb or the
> fz50.


You're probably better off without the A200. While it was an
"upgrade" of the A2 that it replaced, the A2 was in some ways a
better camera, especially for those that got a look at it's *very*
high resolution EVF. In one of its reviews, Dpreview compared 5
similar cameras, the Canon Pro1, Nikon CP8700, Olympus C-8080WZ,
Konica/Minolta DiMAGE A2 and Sony DSC-F828. With its older lens
design, the KM A2 didn't match the optical performance of the other
cameras. If you're interested, the comparison starts on this page:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olym...0wz/page17.asp


The A200's review had this:

> Overall performance, as with the A2 before it, was good, though not the best of the
> 8MP bunch. Noise levels are low, especally at the lower end of the ISO scale. We
> also liked Konica Minolta's tonal balance and color response, both of which were
> natural and did not look overly processed. If anything the color is marginally better
> (skintones, pastels) than the A2 (it does have upgraded image processing), but this is
> more of a hunch than a measurable result. As with the A2, Resolution was 'good' but
> not up to the level we would hope for. The slightly soft results do however sharpen up
> well and the generally clean and respond well to careful post-processing.
>
> Exposure is generally excellent, as is white balance (unless you're shooting under
> artificial light - see above). The Multi-Segment metering does throw up the
> occasional problem (it seems very sensitive to the slightest re-framing), and we
> found centre-weighted metering more reliable. Of around 1000 shots only a handful
> had serious exposure or white balance problems. There is a tendancy to underexpose
> slightly when confronted with very high contrast scenes, which does at least preserve
> highlight detail, but means post-processing is essential to lift the shadows. Chromatic
> Aberration/Purple fringing is low, there is a tiny measurable amount of vignetting
> (darkening of the image corners), but it is not noticeable in 99% of real-world shots.
>
> Our biggest gripe, however, was with the A200's auto focus which proved to be just as
> inconsistent as the A2 before it. There are two problems here - one is the wide area focus
> has a tendancy to lock onto the nearest thing in the scene even if it occupies only a tiny
> part of the frame (see examples below). Far worse, however, is the A200's willingness
> to take a picture that is completely out of focus, often after indicating that focus lock has
> been achieved. As with the A2, the focus is fast, but I would estimate around 1 in 20 shots
> is not correctly focused, probably 1 in 10 when shooting indoors at social occasions
> (i.e zoomed in slightly, low light, subject distances of 1 to 4 meters).
>
> Focus errors
>
> As mentioned above we found the focus system of the A200 to be just as unreliable as the A2
> - whether insisting on locking on some tiny piece of foreground detail (a twig at the edge of
> the frame for example) or simply missing focus altogether, the A200 fails to focus correctly
> too often for a camera in this class. To be fair, we took around 1000 frames during this test,
> and the focus problem occured only in about 40 shots, of which nearly all were in low light at
> longer focal lengths, but it's still something Konica Minolta needs to address in future models.


> As we commented when testing the A2, throughout our samples we found examples of images
> which just weren't as sharp as we expected or had seen from other eight megapixel digital
> cameras. At first we thought this was associated with small apertures however this shifted
> after we found examples in images taken at moderate apertures. Obviously this could be linked
> to the AF issue noted above but in certain soft images it was difficult to see where the AF point
> actually was.


http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/koni...a200/page6.asp

I think that you'll probably be happier with the FZ50 than a
refurb of one of the older, more limited cameras. If there's
something about KM cameras that you like, keep an eye out for new
Sony P&S cameras. Most of K/M's camera assets were transferred to
Sony earlier this year, and although most of them will probably turn
up in Sony's new DSLR line, some of K/M's technology or ideas may
find their way into Sony's better P&S cameras. But it's easy for me
to say, since it's your money that'll be spent.

 
Reply With Quote
 
bruin70@mail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2006
from what i've seen of the fz30, it's all that i can think about for a
camera in that price range. however if an a200 comes along at a price i
can't pass up, i'll jump on it. strictly economics. this camera will be
a tweener until i eventually settle for a dslr in 5 years. .


ASAAR wrote:

>
> You're probably better off without the A200. While it was an
> "upgrade" of the A2 that it replaced, the A2 was in some ways a
> better camera, especially for those that got a look at it's *very*
> high resolution EVF. In one of its reviews, Dpreview compared 5
> similar cameras, the Canon Pro1, Nikon CP8700, Olympus C-8080WZ,
> Konica/Minolta DiMAGE A2 and Sony DSC-F828. With its older lens
> design, the KM A2 didn't match the optical performance of the other
> cameras. If you're interested, the comparison starts on this page:
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olym...0wz/page17.asp
>
>
> The A200's review had this:
>
> > Overall performance, as with the A2 before it, was good, though not the best of the
> > 8MP bunch. Noise levels are low, especally at the lower end of the ISO scale. We
> > also liked Konica Minolta's tonal balance and color response, both of which were
> > natural and did not look overly processed. If anything the color is marginally better
> > (skintones, pastels) than the A2 (it does have upgraded image processing), but this is
> > more of a hunch than a measurable result. As with the A2, Resolution was 'good' but
> > not up to the level we would hope for. The slightly soft results do however sharpen up
> > well and the generally clean and respond well to careful post-processing.
> >
> > Exposure is generally excellent, as is white balance (unless you're shooting under
> > artificial light - see above). The Multi-Segment metering does throw up the
> > occasional problem (it seems very sensitive to the slightest re-framing), and we
> > found centre-weighted metering more reliable. Of around 1000 shots only a handful
> > had serious exposure or white balance problems. There is a tendancy to underexpose
> > slightly when confronted with very high contrast scenes, which does at least preserve
> > highlight detail, but means post-processing is essential to lift the shadows. Chromatic
> > Aberration/Purple fringing is low, there is a tiny measurable amount of vignetting
> > (darkening of the image corners), but it is not noticeable in 99% of real-world shots.
> >
> > Our biggest gripe, however, was with the A200's auto focus which proved to be just as
> > inconsistent as the A2 before it. There are two problems here - one is the wide area focus
> > has a tendancy to lock onto the nearest thing in the scene even if it occupies only a tiny
> > part of the frame (see examples below). Far worse, however, is the A200's willingness
> > to take a picture that is completely out of focus, often after indicating that focus lock has
> > been achieved. As with the A2, the focus is fast, but I would estimate around 1 in 20 shots
> > is not correctly focused, probably 1 in 10 when shooting indoors at social occasions
> > (i.e zoomed in slightly, low light, subject distances of 1 to 4 meters).
> >
> > Focus errors
> >
> > As mentioned above we found the focus system of the A200 to be just as unreliable as the A2
> > - whether insisting on locking on some tiny piece of foreground detail (a twig at the edge of
> > the frame for example) or simply missing focus altogether, the A200 fails to focus correctly
> > too often for a camera in this class. To be fair, we took around 1000 frames during this test,
> > and the focus problem occured only in about 40 shots, of which nearly all were in low light at
> > longer focal lengths, but it's still something Konica Minolta needs to address in future models.

>
> > As we commented when testing the A2, throughout our samples we found examples of images
> > which just weren't as sharp as we expected or had seen from other eight megapixel digital
> > cameras. At first we thought this was associated with small apertures however this shifted
> > after we found examples in images taken at moderate apertures. Obviously this could be linked
> > to the AF issue noted above but in certain soft images it was difficult to see where the AF point
> > actually was.

>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/koni...a200/page6.asp
>
> I think that you'll probably be happier with the FZ50 than a
> refurb of one of the older, more limited cameras. If there's
> something about KM cameras that you like, keep an eye out for new
> Sony P&S cameras. Most of K/M's camera assets were transferred to
> Sony earlier this year, and although most of them will probably turn
> up in Sony's new DSLR line, some of K/M's technology or ideas may
> find their way into Sony's better P&S cameras. But it's easy for me
> to say, since it's your money that'll be spent.


 
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
Cameras--Cameras--Cameras wagwheel Digital Photography 1 04-01-2007 07:55 PM
Cameras--Cameras--Cameras wagwheel Digital Photography 4 04-01-2007 01:12 PM
Cameras--Cameras--Cameras wagwheel Digital Photography 0 03-31-2007 11:38 AM
Google vs. WebFerret (?) Curiosity Question Bay0Wulf Computer Support 5 12-06-2003 06:39 AM
curiosity question regarding __func__ djinni C Programming 2 08-13-2003 04:52 AM



Advertisments