curiosity question re: "programmers"/digital cameras

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by bruin70@mail.com, Aug 11, 2006.

  1. Guest

    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.
     
    , Aug 11, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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
     
    Joseph Meehan, Aug 11, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest


    >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.
     
    , Aug 11, 2006
    #3
  4. ASAAR Guest

    On 10 Aug 2006 18:49:37 -0700, 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/olympusc8080wz/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/konicaminoltaa200/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. :)
     
    ASAAR, Aug 11, 2006
    #4
  5. Guest

    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/olympusc8080wz/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/konicaminoltaa200/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. :)
     
    , Aug 11, 2006
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. David Taylor

    Re: A digital curiosity

    David Taylor, Mar 20, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    160
  2. Martin Brown

    Re: A digital curiosity

    Martin Brown, Mar 20, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    169
    Robert Coe
    Mar 23, 2013
  3. Richard

    Re: A digital curiosity

    Richard, Mar 20, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    177
    Robert Coe
    Mar 23, 2013
  4. Whiskers

    Re: A digital curiosity

    Whiskers, Mar 20, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    143
    Whiskers
    Mar 20, 2013
  5. Robert Coe

    Re: A digital curiosity

    Robert Coe, Mar 23, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    167
    Robert Coe
    Mar 23, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page