D300 shoots like D3 !!!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Sosumi, Feb 5, 2008.

  1. Sosumi

    Sosumi Guest

    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...

    --
    Sosumi
     
    Sosumi, Feb 5, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Sosumi

    John Navas Guest

    On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 20:48:03 -0000, "Sosumi" <> wrote in
    <>:

    >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...


    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/b9d1df059f100e26/d6b00a2ac821298f#d6b00a2ac821298f>

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 5, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Sosumi

    Sosumi Guest

    "John Navas" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 20:48:03 -0000, "Sosumi" <> wrote in
    > <>:
    >
    >>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...

    >
    > 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/b9d1df059f100e26/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.


    --
    Sosumi
     
    Sosumi, Feb 5, 2008
    #3
  4. Sosumi

    John Navas Guest

    On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 21:12:10 -0000, "Sosumi" <> wrote in
    <>:

    >"John Navas" <> wrote in message
    >news:...


    >> 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/b9d1df059f100e26/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.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 5, 2008
    #4
  5. Sosumi

    gpaleo Guest

    Ï "Sosumi" <> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
    news:...
    >
    >
    >
    > 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.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Sosumi



    Astrophotographers do it as a matter of course, for years now.
     
    gpaleo, Feb 5, 2008
    #5
  6. Sosumi

    Sosumi Guest

    "gpaleo" <> wrote in message
    news:1202247398.789913@athprx03...
    >
    > Ï "Sosumi" <> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
    > news:...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> 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.
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Sosumi

    >
    >
    > 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. ;-)
     
    Sosumi, Feb 5, 2008
    #6
  7. "Sosumi" <> wrote:
    >
    >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.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Feb 5, 2008
    #7
  8. Sosumi

    Guest

    On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 21:51:58 -0000, in rec.photo.digital "Sosumi"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"gpaleo" <> wrote in message
    >news:1202247398.789913@athprx03...
    >>
    >> Ï "Sosumi" <> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
    >> news:...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> 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. ;-)


    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.
     
    , Feb 5, 2008
    #8
  9. "Sosumi" <> wrote:
    >"gpaleo" <> wrote:
    >> 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.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Feb 5, 2008
    #9
  10. Sosumi

    Sosumi Guest

    "Floyd L. Davidson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Sosumi" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>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?


    --
    Sosumi
     
    Sosumi, Feb 5, 2008
    #10
  11. Sosumi

    John Navas Guest

    On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 22:47:25 -0000, "Sosumi" <> wrote in
    <>:

    >"Floyd L. Davidson" <> wrote in message
    >news:...


    >> 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.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 5, 2008
    #11
  12. "Sosumi" <> wrote:
    >"Floyd L. Davidson" <> wrote:
    >> 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.

    >>
    >> 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?


    Obviously you were *not* kidding, as the multiple
    responses indicate.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Feb 6, 2008
    #12
  13. Sosumi

    John Navas Guest

    On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:15:50 -0900, (Floyd L. Davidson)
    wrote in <>:

    >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
    >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.


    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.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 6, 2008
    #13
  14. Sosumi

    RichA Guest

    On Feb 5, 3:48 pm, "Sosumi" <> wrote:
    > 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...
    >
    > --
    > 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
     
    RichA, Feb 6, 2008
    #14
  15. Sosumi

    RichA Guest

    On Feb 5, 8:57 pm, RichA <> wrote:
    > On Feb 5, 3:48 pm, "Sosumi" <> wrote:
    >
    > > 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...

    >
    > > --
    > > 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


    OOPS! Here's the 50 frame one!!

    http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/92591428/original
     
    RichA, Feb 6, 2008
    #15
  16. Sosumi

    acl Guest

    On Feb 6, 5:04 am, RichA <> wrote:
    > On Feb 5, 8:57 pm, RichA <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Feb 5, 3:48 pm, "Sosumi" <> wrote:

    >
    > > > 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...

    >
    > > > --
    > > > 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

    >
    > OOPS! Here's the 50 frame one!!
    >
    > 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.
     
    acl, Feb 6, 2008
    #16
  17. "John Navas" <> a écrit dans le message de
    news:...
    > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 21:12:10 -0000, "Sosumi" <> wrote in
    > <>:
    >
    > >"John Navas" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...

    >
    > >> 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 ?
     
    Yvan Descartes, Feb 6, 2008
    #17
  18. John Navas <> wrote:
    >On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:15:50 -0900, (Floyd L. Davidson)
    >wrote in <>:
    >
    >>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.


    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
    >>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.

    >
    >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>


    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.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Feb 6, 2008
    #18
  19. Sosumi

    John Navas Guest

    On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:38:50 -0900, (Floyd L. Davidson)
    wrote in <>:

    >John Navas <> wrote:
    >>On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:15:50 -0900, (Floyd L. Davidson)
    >>wrote in <>:
    >>
    >>>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.

    >
    >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
    >>>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.

    >>
    >>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>

    >
    >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.


    Agreed.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 6, 2008
    #19
  20. Sosumi

    Pete D Guest

    "Yvan Descartes" <> wrote in message
    news:fob7o0$qdm$...
    >
    > "John Navas" <> a écrit dans le message de
    > news:...
    >> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 21:12:10 -0000, "Sosumi" <> wrote in
    >> <>:
    >>
    >> >"John Navas" <> wrote in message
    >> >news:...

    >>
    >> >> 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 ?
    >

    And others and strangely does not work so well for sport so just maybe I
    will have to keep the D3.
     
    Pete D, Feb 6, 2008
    #20
    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. Annika1980

    D60 SHOOTS RUBY !!

    Annika1980, Jul 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    561
    Annika1980
    Jul 31, 2004
  2. measekite

    Top 5 Point and Shoots under $500

    measekite, Feb 27, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    815
    Pete D
    Mar 1, 2005
  3. Birk Binnard

    Sony DSC-F828 shoots B-17 Flying Fortress

    Birk Binnard, Apr 17, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    472
    Ron Hunter
    Apr 19, 2005
  4. Sosumi

    D300 shoots a bird

    Sosumi, Dec 13, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    336
  5. Sosumi

    D300 shoots castles, dragons and dungeons

    Sosumi, Dec 16, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    347
    George Kerby
    Dec 17, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page