DXO CAMERA COMPARISON - CAMERA COMPARISON


Dxo Camera Comparison - Game Camera Mounts - Remote Activated Mini Spy Camera.



Dxo Camera Comparison





dxo camera comparison






    comparison
  • An analogy

  • The act or instance of comparing

  • The quality of being similar or equivalent

  • relation based on similarities and differences

  • qualities that are comparable; "no comparison between the two books"; "beyond compare"

  • the act of examining resemblances; "they made a comparison of noise levels"; "the fractions selected for comparison must require pupils to consider both numerator and denominator"





    camera
  • A camera is a device that records/stores images. These images may be still photographs or moving images such as videos or movies. The term camera comes from the camera obscura (Latin for "dark chamber"), an early mechanism for projecting images. The modern camera evolved from the camera obscura.

  • A chamber or round building

  • television camera: television equipment consisting of a lens system that focuses an image on a photosensitive mosaic that is scanned by an electron beam

  • equipment for taking photographs (usually consisting of a lightproof box with a lens at one end and light-sensitive film at the other)





    dxo
  • Dextrorphan (DXO) is a psychoactive drug of the morphinan chemical class which acts as an antitussive or cough suppressant and dissociative hallucinogen. It is the dextro- stereoisomer of morphanol, the levo- half being levorphanol.











dxo camera comparison - DxO Optics




DxO Optics Pro v 4.2, Standard Edition Photo Enhancing Software for Mac & Windows.


DxO Optics Pro v 4.2, Standard Edition Photo Enhancing Software for Mac & Windows.



The uniqueness of DxO Optics Pro lies in its ability to perform the highest quality corrections without human intervention. Whether you want to enhance your pictures in a single click without having to bother setting up sliders, or you want to manually set up your own correction parameters, you will find an operating mode ("auto", "guided" or "expert") to suit your needs. The all-new DxO Optics Pro version 4 brings a wealth of innovations to demandingphotographers worldwide, building on the superior foundation of DxO Optics Pro v3.5's breakthrough automatic corrections. The DxO Color Engine incorporated in this very latest version DxO Optics Pro software revolutionizes color possibilities with a palette of all-new color functions, from unique Color Rendition Profiles through Color Modes, to the innovative DxO Multi-Point Color Balance. Now DxO Optics Pro helps you achieve even better image quality with ever greater flexibility and control. At the very heart of DxO Optics Pro, the award-winning DxO Optics Engine uses unique hardware modeling to automatically eliminate optical defects. Based on sophisticated models of camera and lens performance, DxO Optics Engine automatically removes lens distortion, vignetting, lens softness and chromatic aberration, and with input from the user, can also apply perspective corrections (keystoning, horizons). To implement DxO's unique Optical corrections on a particular combination of camera and lens, th










82% (12)





G9 ISOcomposite02 H0 & H7 tricks




G9 ISOcomposite02 H0 & H7 tricks





G9: F2.8 handheld ISO200-1600 from 1s to 1/8s at constant exposure, dcraw-gimp. These are 1/4-crops from each image assembled in a composite, with the whole thing cropped to 3:2 to fit my display. The top two are ISO200 & 400 with H0 in dcraw, the bottom two are ISO800 and ISO1600 with H7 instead of H0 in dcraw. Overall I boosted the contrast slightly.

I thought I'd try it at night with mostly ambient light since that's when camera performance matters most to me. It's easy to get good shots in daylight, the trick is to get good shots in low light like this. I can immediately see that I can get away with shots at ISO800 during the day that won't work at night. There's a huge jump in chroma noise from ISO400 to ISO800, and frankly I saw no obvious need to do anything like boost contrast substantially with the lower two ISOs. At fullscreen they look ok "out of the box". ISO800 obviously needs contrast or something to be acceptable, and ISO1600 is too low in color resolution and dynamic range to be useful at all. The snow in the lower left is entirely gone.

Don't think that H7 just pushed out the shadows, with H0 there was so much noise it was ridiculous. This had to be done, it was either that or use the levels tool to boost the low-level (the "0") enough to get rid of the noise peak and then adjust gamma to compensate without bringing in more chroma-noise. Using H7 instead of H0 effectively did the same thing, it was just easier.

Technically the difference between H7 and H0 in dcraw is that with H0 the color-multipliers can be over 1 and they are adjusted so that a certain percentage of the image is blown-out (I disable this with -W), while with H7 the largest is 1 and the rest are adjusted in combination with the WB, the gamma and the tone-curve to recover blown-highlights as much as possible out of the extra 4-6 bits of DR in a 12-14 bit camera, relative to an 8-bit jpeg. In practice this means that H7 files are somewhere around 1/2 eV lower than H0 files. And dcraw works really well with 14bit raw images. 12 bits of DR is a wonderful thing, really, especially when converting to 24bit RGB.

I think that makes ISO800 somewhat-useful but there isn't much that can be done to save ISO1600 at night. 16dB of SNR in a 12-bit camera, what does that mean, with what, 48dB of SNR at best? 75% of the image dynamic-range is noise? And that's before raw-conversion :)

Basically at ISO1600 the image is about 80% noise unless you cram the raw output up above what, 10 bits out of 12 in each channel? I guess so. More "math" fun. This basically means ISO1600 on the G9 is not good for anything except high-speed shots in moderately-good light. No light in=all noise out. Let this be a general lesson: don't try to use ultra-high ISOs to shoot low exposures in very-low light. You're just going to save a lot of noise to disk. Either lower the ISO or raise the exposure. Either the SNR will go up enough to allow enough of the input signal to pass through uncorrupted, or the median exposure will go up above the noise-floor into whatever dynamic-range remains above the noise. Effectively the same thing either way, just one happens at a lower exposure and the other at a higher exposure.

{In my opinion this is the thing that makes photography very cool: there's a direct link between the eyes and the brain. The conscious mind can spend days, years analyzing things from a fact-based rational point of view, but making the basic assumption that what you see is real, you can just look at a shot and see right away whether it is good or bad, interesting or boring, and almost subconsicously/intuitively get a feeling for it, see how it affects you. Right away, no long-winded "analysis" required...and no nonsense tolerated, either. It's very difficult to fool the eyes. And photography is a very good way to stay in touch with the real world, despite all the bullshit from all the bullshtters around you, who think that they can simply open their mouths and talk the world into being exactly the way that they say that it is. Photography has no tolerance for delusional aggrandized nonsense and that is one reason that I love it...and it's always fun to watch people talk shit while they're holding a picture that refutes everything that they are saying. For me personally it's not having to listen to that nonsense AT ALL, and just being able to focus on the real world, free of human bullshit, in a peaceful relaxing manner. I just want to do a good job of capturing images because then I can enjoy the scenes even more. And then of course there is some science involved which directly correlates to the results. And that's just a bonus.}

So anyway this is what I do: I shoot a lot of low exposures handheld and for me the thing is to have enough SNR to get a good clean exposure without having to shoot so slow that I can't get a steady shot. Also I need enough dynamic-range, linear resolution and color-reso











S.W. Waterfront, Washington D.C. take 32,369




S.W. Waterfront, Washington D.C. take 32,369





[Nikon D70 Tamron 28-300VC ISO200 1/750s F8 300mm effective > dcraw ICC H7wWq3o1T> Gimp]

I finally got down here in the right place with good light with both the D70 and the N80 and some ISO200 film, so this is part of a test sequence...if nothing else ;)

Really I just ran off some ICC-corrected versions of these shots (now that I've apparently straightened out the discrepancy between my xp laptop and my Ubuntu laptop [which needs to be updated to 10.10 or whatever it is] in terms of the monitor white-balance temp with ICC profiles active), and this one was at least 30deg off-horizontal. So I thought I'd give it a shot to see how bad it came out after rotating and cropping a 6MP image down to whatever it is now (2500x1500) ...luckily there was little if any vignetting in the upper left corner even at full-zoom (try *that* with a subframe lens) and actually it came out pretty well, after all was said and done. So let's see how many views it racks up! :)

There's some CA visible even at this size but I'm not into spending another 30 minutes fixing it (mainly for lack of practice)..."something to look into", I say, as the Hugin, Bibble, DxO, Capture One and Lightroom programmers chuckle. So yes it could be even sharper. But the colors look pretty good.

Thoughts so far:
...shooting 2 rolls of film within an hour or two in one afternoon, if it's a good afternoon not to mention a good evening, is not enough? Either in terms of shots or time? But then I shoot twice as much and I have twice as many shots to deal with and I'm already at the point where I want to deal with two maybe 3 shots a day at most? Oy, vey. But! To generate shots of such quality with equipment that costs $400 at most, including the lens? That's not bad at all.

Of course I'm still talking about at least 4 maybe 6 camera-bodies and 3 lenses per mount. Plus some sort of point & shoot. And this D70 is on its last legs, I had to turn it off and on every 10 seconds because the body kept locking up. Probably something is borderline-fried on the power-regulator board. But I could definitely see buying another one for $250 on eBay vs $400+ for a D90 or D300 that I don't need. Buying another A200 is a different story, but it would be interesting to try it with a fullframe lens. The problem is that I have no real desire to shoot an A200 except at ISO100 or at night under lights at ISO800. Otherwise it's just "wrong" even with ICC-correction. It's just not fun to pay a lot of money and bust your tail walking around, taking shots and processing them all for "comedy-colors". Same with cooked raw and sorry but ISO800 & ISO1600 are too useful to lose to cooked-raw. So I'm holding out for at least an A700 on the Sony side...the A450 is intriguing, but I'd have to see how bad it is and there's only one way to find out...to drop $500+sh/h on an European body.

But I gave up on the Tamron 17-35, it's just too much trouble to get one at a good price and it's barely any wider than the 19-35 and sure F2.8 sounds nice compared to F3.5 but how often am I going to want to shoot it there if it vignettes like crazy at F2.8 on a fullframe camera. Vignetting sucks. The only time that it's even remotely acceptable is when shooting at night. And as much as I did not want to buy the same lens twice for the two mounts it just made too much sense to get the same FL-range for the Nikon that I had for the Sony as long as the point of getting the two was to have a matched set of each for comparison. And I actually paid less for the Cosina than I paid for the Tamron and the Tamron is basically a rebadged Cosina. Cosina supposedly makes most of the low to mid-range Japanese lenses and they are just rebadged for each "manufacturer"...and the Cosina 19-35 and the Tamron 19-35 look almost identical. Close enough but not quite the same, good enough and cheap but still very useful, no outrageous negatives: a "winner" :)

So I'm pretty-much focusing now on getting either an A450, A700 or going for broke and getting an A850/A900. I actually had an A850 in my hands the other day at Ritz, it's surprisingly small and light, easily smaller than the 500si. I thought it would be a big old honkin' camera like the D700 but no. Of course now the problem is going to be "getting one while they are no longer being made"...the longer the Japanese factories are out of commission behind this tsunami, the higher the prices are going to go, at least until they shift production to Taiwan or China.









dxo camera comparison








dxo camera comparison




DxO Optics Pro v6.5 Elite






DxO Optics Pro is an award winning automatic image enhancement software for enthusiastic amateur and professional photographers shooting in JPEG or RAW format. World-renowned for its unique automated optical corrections and its state-of-the-art RAW conversion, DxO Optics Pro addresses the entire spectrum of image quality issues, including noise removal, exposure optimization, keystoning correction, color control and dust removal. Its fully-customizable and easy-to-use interface makes it an unrivalled productivity tool, able to process hundreds of images in just a few clicks: Thanks to its laboratory-generated profiles, DxO Optics Pro is able to uniquely correct optical faults for each image on a vast number of camera and lens combinations. On demand it can also correct volume anamorphosis and persperctive. DxO Optics Pro's new generation RAW processor is able to maintain the finest details, even at the pixel scale, without introducing artifacts into the image. DxO Optics Pro uses a powerful noise reduction technology, which allows shooting in very low light without compromising the image quality. This technology gives a 1 to 2 stop bonus additional latitude to the photographer, opening new shooting opportunities in low light conditions. DxO Optics Pro is available for Mac or Windows, as a standalone application. It comes in two editions: DxO Optics Pro Standard and DxO Optics Pro Elite, which only differ in terms of the supported camera bodies. A high speed Internet connection is required for software installation.










Related topics:

multanova speed camera

monochrome ccd camera

spy camera cheap

windows 7 usb camera

trail camera viewer

flip video camera troubleshooting

6 led usb camera driver

best camera digital slr

flying spy camera

cellular camera phones



Category: None |Trackbacks(0) |Comments(2)
Comment is pending administrator's approval.
2017/04/22 (Sat) 18:23| | # [Edit]
Comment is pending administrator's approval.
2017/04/24 (Mon) 07:22| | # [Edit]

Post a comment















Only the blog author may view the comment.