Megapixel War Over for Point and Shoots?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by measekite, Nov 29, 2008.

  1. measekite

    measekite Guest

    Using the G10 as an example do the majority of readers feel the MP war is
    over.

    It seems that as the sensor size remains (for the time being) fixed on
    most of the point and shoot cameras the mfg has reached the limit on
    increasing the MP while still improving image quality.

    At any ISO over the minimum (80/100) and in any light other than bright
    high contrast light the image quality is becoming less and less. More and
    more processing is being used to rid the image of noise translating to an
    increase in artifacts and a reduction in sharpness. So while you have
    more pixels for cropping and greater print sizes the real image quality
    has not improved and much of the time is less.

    Now for those snapshooters who print 4x6 with very little cropping the
    image quality is quite good but still will not look better than the
    previous batch of camera a couple of years back even though the cameras
    itself have more features and may be better.

    So what is the answer to getting better results. A 4/3 PS will be too
    heavy and bulky but a larger sensor is needed. Maybe a sensor size
    between the current PS and a 4/3 might be considered for cameras the size
    of a Canon A series but for the smaller elph size cameras the MP count may
    have reach its limit.

    So an A size series with a larger sensor and with an EVF might be the best
    choice for a new generation of PS cameras. Also add an articulating LCD.
    Now this needs to be smaller than the current long zoom EVF cameras like
    the Canon S5 or SX10. Maybe the size of near a G10 but way less
    expensive. Having RAW may be a benefit to some and not expensive to have
    as standard on all cameras.

    So what you do think?
     
    measekite, Nov 29, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. measekite

    Steve Guest

    On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:05:55 GMT, measekite <>
    wrote:

    >Using the G10 as an example do the majority of readers feel the MP war is
    >over.
    >
    >It seems that as the sensor size remains (for the time being) fixed on
    >most of the point and shoot cameras the mfg has reached the limit on
    >increasing the MP while still improving image quality.


    Sensor noise notwithstanding, if you've been paying attention to the
    whole diffraction limited discussion (which I don't blame you if you
    haven't) you'd realize that the MP war is over for that sensor size
    from an actual useable resolution. Maybe not from a marketing
    standpoint though.

    The reason it's over is that with all those 14MP on that little 1/1.7"
    sensor, there's already more than enough spatial resolution at the
    sensor to over resolve an airy disk. So even with a perfect lens
    (which it does not have) in most circumstances you won't get any
    better resolution in your images by going to higher MP counts.

    Now if you only consider noise and aren't concerned about the fact
    that increasing MP count doesn't get you any better real resolution,
    adding more pixels can give you more to average out noise in your
    final, properly rescaled image. But, increasing the pixel density
    increases the noise per pixel. So at best, it's a zero sum game and
    in reality, it seems to be a losing proposition.

    Steve
     
    Steve, Nov 29, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >> I think the MP war just claimed another victim: me. I bought a G10 with
    >> high hopes, but image quality just isn't there. I'm dumping it and taking
    >> a long look at micro 4/3 for a smaller camera. I had hoped that


    > At roughly the same sensor size as a cropped DSLR and quality lenses, it
    > should do little worse than cropped DSLR's.


    I think the G10 sensor is much smaller than a cropped DSLR. Canon's website
    says it's a 1/1.7-inch sensor, but I can never remember how to translate
    that into actual dimensions. Instead, I will note that the lens has a range
    of 6.1-30.5mm, which Canon claims is equivalent to 28-140mm on 35mm film.
    That's a compensation factor of 4.6. As a 4/3 sensor has a compensation
    factor of about 2, I conclude that the G10 sensor is slightly less than half
    the linear dimensions of a 4/3 sensor, or slightly less than 1/4 the area.

    Putting it differently, a full-frame DSLR has a sensor with about 20 times
    the area of a Canon G10. That's quite a difference.
     
    Andrew Koenig, Nov 29, 2008
    #3
  4. measekite

    Mark Thomas Guest

    BÔwser wrote:
    >
    > "measekite" <> wrote in message
    > news:nogYk.8523$...
    >> Using the G10 as an example do the majority of readers feel the MP war is
    >> over.
    >>
    >> It seems that as the sensor size remains (for the time being) fixed on
    >> most of the point and shoot cameras the mfg has reached the limit on
    >> increasing the MP while still improving image quality.
    >>
    >> At any ISO over the minimum (80/100) and in any light other than bright
    >> high contrast light the image quality is becoming less and less. More
    >> and
    >> more processing is being used to rid the image of noise translating to an
    >> increase in artifacts and a reduction in sharpness. So while you have
    >> more pixels for cropping and greater print sizes the real image quality
    >> has not improved and much of the time is less.
    >>
    >> Now for those snapshooters who print 4x6 with very little cropping the
    >> image quality is quite good but still will not look better than the
    >> previous batch of camera a couple of years back even though the cameras
    >> itself have more features and may be better.
    >>
    >> So what is the answer to getting better results. A 4/3 PS will be too
    >> heavy and bulky but a larger sensor is needed. Maybe a sensor size
    >> between the current PS and a 4/3 might be considered for cameras the size
    >> of a Canon A series but for the smaller elph size cameras the MP count
    >> may
    >> have reach its limit.
    >>
    >> So an A size series with a larger sensor and with an EVF might be the
    >> best
    >> choice for a new generation of PS cameras. Also add an articulating LCD.
    >> Now this needs to be smaller than the current long zoom EVF cameras like
    >> the Canon S5 or SX10. Maybe the size of near a G10 but way less
    >> expensive. Having RAW may be a benefit to some and not expensive to have
    >> as standard on all cameras.
    >>
    >> So what you do think?

    >
    > I think the MP war just claimed another victim: me. I bought a G10 with
    > high hopes, but image quality just isn't there. I'm dumping it and
    > taking a long look at micro 4/3 for a smaller camera. I had hoped that
    > even with higher noise the increase in resolution (pixel count) might
    > produce better prints, but it does not. I compared an 8x10 of the same
    > subject shot with a Sony 828 and the G10, and the Sony produced better
    > prints. I would have loved to see a G10 with a 2/3 8MP sensor, but it'll
    > never happen. Damned shame, too. No more small sensor cameras for me.


    Coincidentally, the op made me think back over all the p&s cameras I've
    used, and there were two that had the most dslr-like performance *in
    good light*. They were the Sony F828 and the Olympus C8080. Those
    cameras both gave the best pixel-to-pixel sharpness I've seen from any
    p&s (great lenses). They both started to get noisy above base ISO, and
    there were the other problems associated with small sensors, slow
    electronics and contrast AF, but the lenses on those two cameras were
    superb (ok, there was the occasional purple-fringing of the Sony, but
    that Zeiss lens was wonderful), and the sensors were excellent at their
    base iso rating..

    I find it very depressing, especially when you look at the performance
    of cameras like some of the early Fuji series (F10-F30), that
    manufacturers haven't been able to develop the true potential of
    2/3"-ish sized sensors. If they kept them at around the 8Mp level -
    which is AMPLE for the majority of p&s users - I think they could have.

    If someone created a good, low noise 8Mp p&s camera with a lens like
    that Zeiss 28-200 (that purple-fringing would be pretty easy to correct
    now with today's in-camera processing!), or the Leica-designed ones on
    the Panasonics, it would sell in the millions. But no.

    Perhaps it just reflects on the typical 'discerning' p&s
    user-without-a-clue (you only have to look around for an example..) and
    their reaction to advertising where only megapixels matter. I'm not
    knocking p&s cameras - I use and like them and there are several good
    ones - but it's sad that they fell into this hole, when I believe they
    could be much, much better.


    I do think the m4/3 format is good idea, and will be interested to see
    where that goes, but there is still a *huge* market for small superzooms
    with good high-iso performance. Some of the manufacturers have got the
    *lenses* up to scratch, now, how about fixing the bloody sensors by
    reversing this stupid MP race!!

    As an analogy, how do you think a new *film* would succeed, if it was
    marketed as "the highest resolution colour film ever produced - better
    than Kodachrome 25 or Velvia", but they *neglected* to admit it had the
    grain of Konica 3200... Would it last?
     
    Mark Thomas, Nov 29, 2008
    #4
  5. measekite

    Paul Furman Guest

    Mark Thomas wrote:
    >
    > If someone created a good, low noise 8Mp p&s camera with a lens like
    > that Zeiss 28-200 (that purple-fringing would be pretty easy to correct
    > now with today's in-camera processing!)


    Purple fringing CA can't be removed like red/green CA in software. PF
    occurs all around bright contrasty areas & you have to do some tricky
    desaturating to minimise it.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Nov 29, 2008
    #5
  6. measekite

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:39:43 -0500, BÔwser <0m> wrote:

    >
    >"Mark Thomas" <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote in message
    >news:ggsekl$kcn$...
    >> BÔwser wrote:
    >>> I think the MP war just claimed another victim: me. I bought a G10 with
    >>> high hopes, but image quality just isn't there. I'm dumping it and taking
    >>> a long look at micro 4/3 for a smaller camera. I had hoped that even with
    >>> higher noise the increase in resolution (pixel count) might produce
    >>> better prints, but it does not. I compared an 8x10 of the same subject
    >>> shot with a Sony 828 and the G10, and the Sony produced better prints. I
    >>> would have loved to see a G10 with a 2/3 8MP sensor, but it'll never
    >>> happen. Damned shame, too. No more small sensor cameras for me.

    >>
    >> Coincidentally, the op made me think back over all the p&s cameras I've
    >> used, and there were two that had the most dslr-like performance *in good
    >> light*. They were the Sony F828 and the Olympus C8080. Those cameras
    >> both gave the best pixel-to-pixel sharpness I've seen from any p&s (great
    >> lenses). They both started to get noisy above base ISO, and there were
    >> the other problems associated with small sensors, slow electronics and
    >> contrast AF, but the lenses on those two cameras were superb (ok, there
    >> was the occasional purple-fringing of the Sony, but that Zeiss lens was
    >> wonderful), and the sensors were excellent at their base iso rating..

    >
    >Loved my Sony 828, and hate the fact that Sony abandoned that form factor.
    >Tilt body was great, wonderful lens, real sharp. That camera, with a less
    >noisy sensor would make my day. 8MP is plenty of resolution, and 28-200 is
    >an ideal zoom range. Plus, I loved the night shot/night frame feature, the
    >laser-assist focusing, and IR capability, and the other features. Sony
    >really, really blew it by not upadting that one.


    I've still got my 707. Within it's limits, its a great camera. I still
    use it.
    >>
    >> I find it very depressing, especially when you look at the performance of
    >> cameras like some of the early Fuji series (F10-F30), that manufacturers
    >> haven't been able to develop the true potential of 2/3"-ish sized sensors.
    >> If they kept them at around the 8Mp level - which is AMPLE for the
    >> majority of p&s users - I think they could have.
    >>
    >> If someone created a good, low noise 8Mp p&s camera with a lens like that
    >> Zeiss 28-200 (that purple-fringing would be pretty easy to correct now
    >> with today's in-camera processing!), or the Leica-designed ones on the
    >> Panasonics, it would sell in the millions. But no.

    >
    >GD marketeers...
    >
    >>
    >> Perhaps it just reflects on the typical 'discerning' p&s
    >> user-without-a-clue (you only have to look around for an example..) and
    >> their reaction to advertising where only megapixels matter. I'm not
    >> knocking p&s cameras - I use and like them and there are several good
    >> ones - but it's sad that they fell into this hole, when I believe they
    >> could be much, much better.
    >>
    >>
    >> I do think the m4/3 format is good idea, and will be interested to see
    >> where that goes, but there is still a *huge* market for small superzooms
    >> with good high-iso performance. Some of the manufacturers have got the
    >> *lenses* up to scratch, now, how about fixing the bloody sensors by
    >> reversing this stupid MP race!!

    >
    >4/3 is nice, but the more I think about it, the more an XSi is better for me
    >since I already have a few Canon lenses and accessories. No sense in getting
    >into a second system.
    >
    >>
    >> As an analogy, how do you think a new *film* would succeed, if it was
    >> marketed as "the highest resolution colour film ever produced - better
    >> than Kodachrome 25 or Velvia", but they *neglected* to admit it had the
    >> grain of Konica 3200... Would it last?

    >
    >I wouldn't use it...




    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Nov 30, 2008
    #6
  7. measekite

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Eric Stevens and Bowser wrote:
    > On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:39:43 -0500, BÔwser <0m> wrote:
    >
    >> Loved my Sony 828, and hate the fact that Sony abandoned that form factor.

    >
    > I've still got my 707. Within it's limits, its a great camera. I still
    > use it.


    The 707/717/828 series were brilliant. It was sad that the 828 got such
    a bad rap over the purple-fringing because it was a non-issue in most
    scenes and compared to other cameras of its day, it absolutely ran rings
    around them. Had very good af speeds, and yep, the IR ability was a
    bonus. I'll be buying a s-h one when the opportunity arises.

    >> 4/3 is nice, but the more I think about it, the more an XSi is better for me
    >> since I already have a few Canon lenses and accessories. No sense in getting
    >> into a second system.

    Fair enough. Again, I think 4/3 gets a bad rap in some respects - the
    newer ones have good high-iso performance (far better than any p&s and
    comparable to the bottom end dslrs), and Olympus glass is very nice.
    The E520 twin lens kit is a stand out bargain for what you get.

    But I shall procrastinate further until the first few m4/3s appear, and
    then finally make a decision. I'm just not a Canon/Nikon sort of person,
    so it will be between those and Sony or Pentax, I think.
     
    Mark Thomas, Nov 30, 2008
    #7
  8. measekite

    Paul Furman Guest

    Walter Fess wrote:
    > On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 00:22:45 -0500, "RichA" <> wrote:
    >
    >> "Paul Furman" <> wrote in message
    >> news:c9kYk.9904$...
    >>> Mark Thomas wrote:
    >>>> If someone created a good, low noise 8Mp p&s camera with a lens like that
    >>>> Zeiss 28-200 (that purple-fringing would be pretty easy to correct now
    >>>> with today's in-camera processing!)
    >>> Purple fringing CA can't be removed like red/green CA in software. PF
    >>> occurs all around bright contrasty areas & you have to do some tricky
    >>> desaturating to minimise it.

    >> What people don't seem to realize is that purple fringing is actually
    >> diffused across the entire image, reducing contrast and effecting colour
    >> fidelity. You can't just cut it off the edges, and when it is severe, it
    >> bleeds into the subjects forming the edge. By the time you do enough to
    >> reduce it at an edge, you've compromised the whole image. Better to get a
    >> lens good enough to control it.
    >>

    >
    > What you and others might fail to realize is that you're a total idiot.
    >
    > It is NOT "diffused across the entire image". Where'd you invent this nonsense?
    > And is NOT the lens that causes it, it's the sensor design. While you can
    > minimize it by using smaller apertures or longer zoom settings (making the
    > light-paths more perpendicular to the sensor's micro-lenses), it's not the lens
    > that is the culprit. The lens can exacerbate it but it is not the cause of it..
    > When you know your camera well enough and expose your scene properly you can
    > eliminate it entirely during all of your photography. But then, that's for
    > experts, not snapshooting amateurs that have it appear as a "diffused across the
    > entire image" effect. (I can't believe someone would even be stupid enough type
    > that nonsense.)
    >
    > What digital-photography rock did you crawl out from under?


    No it's not the lens, it's the small sensor the poor lens is trying to
    keep up with. You see the same purple fringing on 35mm cameras when
    there's a super-fast lens trying to push the limits.
     
    Paul Furman, Nov 30, 2008
    #8
  9. measekite

    Paul Furman Guest

    Billy Vales wrote:
    > Paul Furman wrote:
    >
    >> No it's not the lens, it's the small sensor the poor lens is trying to
    >> keep up with. You see the same purple fringing on 35mm cameras when
    >> there's a super-fast lens trying to push the limits.

    >
    > Dear Resident-Troll,
    > ...
    > Many (new & improved) points outlined below completely disprove your usual



    I'll take that as confirmation of my point.
     
    Paul Furman, Nov 30, 2008
    #9
  10. measekite

    Paul Heslop Guest

    Allen Smithee wrote:
    >
    > "Paul Furman" <> wrote in message
    > news:c9kYk.9904$...
    >
    > >> If someone created a good, low noise 8Mp p&s camera with a lens like that
    > >> Zeiss 28-200 (that purple-fringing would be pretty easy to correct now
    > >> with today's in-camera processing!)

    >
    > > Purple fringing CA can't be removed like red/green CA in software. PF
    > > occurs all around bright contrasty areas & you have to do some tricky
    > > desaturating to minimise it.

    >
    > I haven't experienced purple fringing myself only normal CA, so am only
    > talking theory here, but isn't that what 'defringe' does in ACR? I was
    > under the impression that this was for removing purple, red and magenta
    > fringing, for example around secular highlights?


    I have a superzoom which has very bad fringing if contrast is high. I
    used to use one of the defringe options in photoshop or paintshop on
    my older camera but sometimes the fringing is so bad on this one that
    using these methods actually leaves an obvious colourised or even grey
    tone strip in the place of the fringe.

    --
    Paul (We won't die of devotion)
    -------------------------------------------------------
    Stop and Look
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
     
    Paul Heslop, Nov 30, 2008
    #10
  11. measekite

    Paul Furman Guest

    Allen Smithee wrote:
    > "Paul Furman" <> wrote in message
    > news:c9kYk.9904$...
    >
    >>> If someone created a good, low noise 8Mp p&s camera with a lens like
    >>> that Zeiss 28-200 (that purple-fringing would be pretty easy to
    >>> correct now with today's in-camera processing!)

    >
    >
    >> Purple fringing CA can't be removed like red/green CA in software. PF
    >> occurs all around bright contrasty areas & you have to do some tricky
    >> desaturating to minimise it.

    >
    > I haven't experienced purple fringing myself only normal CA, so am only
    > talking theory here, but isn't that what 'defringe' does in ACR? I was
    > under the impression that this was for removing purple, red and magenta
    > fringing, for example around secular highlights?


    I have CS1 so maybe different but on the lens correction tab it has
    red/cyan and blue/yellow CA adjustments which scale those channels till
    they match up better. PF is a matter of the blue-violet color (and
    sometimes green) being out of focus, not just misaligned in the XY
    direction. When I shoot wide open with high contrast edges on some
    super-fast or long/fast lenses I see PF and it's awfully hard to fix.
    One solution is to just desaturate the blue channel, or that specific
    color. PF on P&S is the same effect because they are pushing the limits
    of those tiny optics. I assume stopping down helps but that'll give a
    softer image due to diffraction. Newer better lenses are indeed better
    though. Cheap cell phone camera images have a huge purple haze all over
    them.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Nov 30, 2008
    #11
  12. measekite

    Paul Heslop Guest

    nathan-cando wrote:
    >
    > On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:12:45 GMT, Paul Heslop <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Allen Smithee wrote:
    > >>
    > >> "Paul Furman" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:c9kYk.9904$...
    > >>
    > >> >> If someone created a good, low noise 8Mp p&s camera with a lens like that
    > >> >> Zeiss 28-200 (that purple-fringing would be pretty easy to correct now
    > >> >> with today's in-camera processing!)
    > >>
    > >> > Purple fringing CA can't be removed like red/green CA in software. PF
    > >> > occurs all around bright contrasty areas & you have to do some tricky
    > >> > desaturating to minimise it.
    > >>
    > >> I haven't experienced purple fringing myself only normal CA, so am only
    > >> talking theory here, but isn't that what 'defringe' does in ACR? I was
    > >> under the impression that this was for removing purple, red and magenta
    > >> fringing, for example around secular highlights?

    > >
    > >I have a superzoom which has very bad fringing if contrast is high. I
    > >used to use one of the defringe options in photoshop or paintshop on
    > >my older camera but sometimes the fringing is so bad on this one that
    > >using these methods actually leaves an obvious colourised or even grey
    > >tone strip in the place of the fringe.

    >
    > Any tools in untalented hands will always cause more destruction.


    ooh, bitchy :O)

    The camera in question has an awful reputation, only I didn't find
    that out til I had it in my paws. What I would have found was loads of
    people pointing out the problems which I thought was just my one off
    duff machine.

    as for the defringing thingy it was really a kind of test which
    failed, but hey, better to not try isn't it?

    Just dug up a page which has some samples near the bottom, four in a
    group, take a look at the guy in glasses and then the tree, but more
    so the tree as it really is a good example of how bad it gets

    http://www.digicamreview.co.uk/olympus_camedia_c725_review.htm

    --
    Paul (We won't die of devotion)
    -------------------------------------------------------
    Stop and Look
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
     
    Paul Heslop, Nov 30, 2008
    #12
  13. measekite

    Paul Furman Guest

    Allen Smithee wrote:
    > "Paul Furman" <> wrote in message
    > news:FnCYk.9443$...
    >
    >>>>> If someone created a good, low noise 8Mp p&s camera with a lens
    >>>>> like that Zeiss 28-200 (that purple-fringing would be pretty easy
    >>>>> to correct now with today's in-camera processing!)

    >
    >>>> Purple fringing CA can't be removed like red/green CA in software.
    >>>> PF occurs all around bright contrasty areas & you have to do some
    >>>> tricky desaturating to minimise it.

    >
    >>> I haven't experienced purple fringing myself only normal CA, so am
    >>> only talking theory here, but isn't that what 'defringe' does in
    >>> ACR? I was under the impression that this was for removing purple,
    >>> red and magenta fringing, for example around specular highlights?

    >
    >> I have CS1 so maybe different but on the lens correction tab it has
    >> red/cyan and blue/yellow CA adjustments which scale those channels
    >> till they match up better. PF is a matter of the blue-violet color
    >> (and sometimes green) being out of focus, not just misaligned in the
    >> XY direction. When I shoot wide open with high contrast edges on some
    >> super-fast or long/fast lenses I see PF and it's awfully hard to fix.
    >> One solution is to just desaturate the blue channel, or that specific
    >> color. PF on P&S is the same effect because they are pushing the
    >> limits of those tiny optics. I assume stopping down helps but that'll
    >> give a softer image due to diffraction. Newer better lenses are indeed
    >> better though. Cheap cell phone camera images have a huge purple haze
    >> all over them.

    >
    >
    > With later versions of PS (I don't know what version they introduced
    > it), ACR also includes a de-fringe option in the lens correction tab.
    > Here is an example of it on and off (highlight edge only, image at 300%
    > just to make it easier to see):
    >
    > De -fringe off:
    > http://i35.tinypic.com/2cf1i0.jpg
    >
    > De-fringe on:
    > http://i36.tinypic.com/29nxezc.jpg


    That's red-blue chromatic aberration (CA). Maybe it's automatic in newer
    versions but I have to adjust the sliders to do that. It makes a big
    improvement, and a real improvement by re-aligning the colors.


    > Of course, I'm not defending the problem as the least post production
    > correction required the better. Also, it's not something I've looked
    > into in any depth, so there maybe other problems like Paul Heslop
    > mentioned.
    >
    >
    >



    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Dec 1, 2008
    #13
  14. measekite

    Paul Furman Guest

    Re: |TROLL| Re: Megapixel War Over for Point and Shoots?

    _________ wrote:
    > Paul Furman wrote:
    >
    >> I have CS1

    >
    > There's your problem. Using tools designed almost two decades ago


    It's only 3 or 4 years old.


    >> so maybe different but on the lens correction tab it has
    >> red/cyan and blue/yellow CA adjustments which scale those channels till
    >> they match up better. PF is a matter of the blue-violet color (and
    >> sometimes green) being out of focus, not just misaligned in the XY
    >> direction. When I shoot wide open with high contrast edges on some
    >> super-fast or long/fast lenses I see PF and it's awfully hard to fix.
    >> One solution is to just desaturate the blue channel, or that specific
    >> color.

    >
    > Only a rank amateur would do it that way.


    Thanks for your helpful contribution. I've seen lots of different
    approaches, haven't had a lot of need for it but your suggestion was
    very helpful. Where I do have the need is wide open fast lenses & it's
    spread out more than typical P&S PF.
     
    Paul Furman, Dec 1, 2008
    #14
  15. measekite

    Paul Furman Guest

    lars_straffe wrote:
    > On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 16:19:00 -0800, Paul Furman <> wrote:
    >
    >> _________ wrote:
    >>> Paul Furman wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I have CS1
    >>> There's your problem. Using tools designed almost two decades ago

    >> It's only 3 or 4 years old.

    >
    > Until this year the whole program was operating at only a 16-bit math level.


    I don't even use 16 bit. If I need significant adjustments, those are
    done in the raw conversion.


    > Most of it still is. Just because the program is only 3-4 years old doesn't mean
    > there's been any improvements in some of its basic tools. I haven't seen much
    > improvement in PS since v5.5. That was the last time they made enough
    > improvements in their software where it deserved a new version number. That was
    > over 8 years ago. By all rights CS4 should be called Photoshop v6.0.1.
    >
    > How long did it take Corel to update their PSP filters to be able to deal with
    > 16-bit depth color, 4 years, 5 years? Some of their filters still won't work on
    > 16-bit color images. Truncating everything to 8-bit depth images when they are
    > used. Then people go merrily on their way, continuing to edit, never realizing
    > they lost 8x's the amount of data they first started with after having used one
    > of its 8-bit filters.
    >
    > Think.
    >
    > (I know that's difficult for you, but do try.)
    >
    >>>> so maybe different but on the lens correction tab it has
    >>>> red/cyan and blue/yellow CA adjustments which scale those channels till
    >>>> they match up better. PF is a matter of the blue-violet color (and
    >>>> sometimes green) being out of focus, not just misaligned in the XY
    >>>> direction. When I shoot wide open with high contrast edges on some
    >>>> super-fast or long/fast lenses I see PF and it's awfully hard to fix.
    >>>> One solution is to just desaturate the blue channel, or that specific
    >>>> color.
    >>> Only a rank amateur would do it that way.

    >> Thanks for your helpful contribution. I've seen lots of different
    >> approaches, haven't had a lot of need for it but your suggestion was
    >> very helpful. Where I do have the need is wide open fast lenses & it's
    >> spread out more than typical P&S PF.

    >



    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Dec 1, 2008
    #15
  16. measekite

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Re: |TROLL| Re: Megapixel War Over for Point and Shoots?

    Paul Furman <> wrote:
    >_________ wrote:
    >> Paul Furman wrote:
    >>
    >>> I have CS1

    >>
    >> There's your problem. Using tools designed almost two decades ago

    >
    >It's only 3 or 4 years old.


    You're responding to a known troll and liar.

    Ignore it.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 1, 2008
    #16
  17. measekite

    Ray Fischer Guest

    lars_straffe <> wrote:
    >On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 16:19:00 -0800, Paul Furman <> wrote:
    >
    >>_________ wrote:
    >>> Paul Furman wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I have CS1
    >>>
    >>> There's your problem. Using tools designed almost two decades ago

    >>
    >>It's only 3 or 4 years old.
    >>

    >Until this year the whole program was operating at only a 16-bit math level.


    A complete lie, but just the sort of lie we've come to expect from
    this troll.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 1, 2008
    #17
  18. measekite

    SMS Guest

    measekite wrote:
    > Using the G10 as an example do the majority of readers feel the MP war is
    > over.


    It may not be quite over. There could still be a move to lower noise
    CMOS sensors (as in the G10) in lower priced P&S cameras. But even then,
    they may not increase the resolution, choosing instead to decrease the
    noise.

    What we're seeing now is people owning multiple digital cameras. They
    use a point and shoot when portability is of paramount importance, and a
    D-SLR when image quality, shutter lag, and the need for longer or wider
    lenses trumps portability.
     
    SMS, Dec 2, 2008
    #18
  19. measekite

    SMS Guest

    RichA wrote:

    > People marketing to pixel-happy P&S retards will stop at 40, I'm sure of it.


    What may bring some sanity back to the P&S resolution, at least at the
    lower end, is the expense of doing 30fps video at the higher
    resolutions. Canon has already run into this on their lower end A
    series, i.e. look at the A590is versus the A570is. The A590 upped the
    resolution slightly and simultaneously reduced the frame rate for video.

    The G10 is rather insane. If not for the low-noise CMOS sensor it would
    be horrible even at low-ISO, and it already does poorly at high-ISO.

    As one reviewer wrote, "However, if you're a high ISO or low light
    shooter, it's probably worth stepping up to a digital SLR (which,
    incidentally, start at only $40 more than the G10)." Duh.

    The problem for the G10 is that a) it's not all that small, b) it's
    expensive, and c) it suffers from the usual P&S problems caused by the
    small sensor and the contrast detect focusing. For not much more money
    you can get a good D-SLR with two decent, image-stabilized, lenses. All
    the experts agree that you're better off with a mid-range D-SLR than a
    high end P&S like the G10.
     
    SMS, Dec 2, 2008
    #19
  20. measekite

    measekite Guest

    On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:48:22 -0800, SMS wrote:

    > RichA wrote:
    >
    >> People marketing to pixel-happy P&S retards will stop at 40, I'm sure of it.

    >
    > What may bring some sanity back to the P&S resolution, at least at the
    > lower end, is the expense of doing 30fps video at the higher
    > resolutions. Canon has already run into this on their lower end A
    > series, i.e. look at the A590is versus the A570is. The A590 upped the
    > resolution slightly and simultaneously reduced the frame rate for video.
    >
    > The G10 is rather insane. If not for the low-noise CMOS sensor it would
    > be horrible even at low-ISO, and it already does poorly at high-ISO.
    >
    > As one reviewer wrote, "However, if you're a high ISO or low light
    > shooter, it's probably worth stepping up to a digital SLR (which,
    > incidentally, start at only $40 more than the G10)." Duh.
    >
    > The problem for the G10 is that a) it's not all that small, b) it's
    > expensive, and c) it suffers from the usual P&S problems caused by the
    > small sensor and the contrast detect focusing. For not much more money
    > you can get a good D-SLR with two decent, image-stabilized, lenses. All
    > the experts agree that you're better off with a mid-range D-SLR than a
    > high end P&S like the G10.


    Then what if you want smaller and greater portability for less cash? And
    you want to print 8x10 with some cropping and desire striking results. Is
    it possible and how many MP should you look for>
     
    measekite, Dec 3, 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. measekite

    Top 5 Point and Shoots under $500

    measekite, Feb 27, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    814
    Pete D
    Mar 1, 2005
  2. Paul Rubin

    Good AA-powered point-and-shoots?

    Paul Rubin, Nov 23, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    839
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Nov 24, 2005
  3. Dynamic Range of Point & Shoots...

    , Nov 18, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    655
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
    Nov 21, 2006
  4. Rich
    Replies:
    237
    Views:
    3,371
    John Navas
    Nov 19, 2007
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,155
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page