In terms of noise, the guy may be right.
Now push the limits, and watch the colours …
Amities
Philippe
> Le 1 sept. 2019 à 07:18, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>
> On 8/30/2019 3:23 PM, Mike Gordon via olympus wrote:
>> <<<If one uses ACR (LR or PS), distortion correction is not optional.
>>
>> Yes, no option using ACR to turn off use of metadata corrections. I haven't
>> reviewed this in a couple years. Some corrections in metadata also include
>> CA and vignetting. Starting 2014 or slightly before, Panny lenses on Panny
>> bodies began including the CA correction metadata. DXO does NR on the RAW
>> data pre-conversion, but that is fully user controlled. Not clear how
>> clarity could be applied pre-conversion though some other aspects of the
>> image are baked into the RAW files:
>>
>>
>> https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/10/raw-is-not-raw.html
>
> While this essay is a great resource, the title is a little misleading. Raw
> is indeed Raw, but useless until converted into something else. The point is,
> I think, that the process is more interpretation than conversion. This is
> rather obvious if one uses different converters on the same Raw file. I can
> see people wanting to know which conversion is the CORRECT one, but the
> answer is both none, as there is no inherent converted result in the Raw
> file, and all.
>
> The interesting thing that's happened since this essay is improvements in
> sensor systems such that some cameras may be said to be ISO Invariant (over
> some range of ISOs). That is to say, the result of shooting at ISO 1600 is
> identical in shadows/noise to shooting at ISO 200 and increasing luminosity
> by three stops in processing.
>
> Quite remarkable is that this is true of some 1" sensor systems, such as the
> Sony RX100 and Panny ZS200:
>
> "The ZS200's sensor is essentially ISO invariant, so you can (in most
> instances) shoot at base ISO and increase the brightness several stops while
> processing the Raw image, with a minimal noise penalty. By keeping the ISO
> low the camera captures additional highlight data instead of 'throwing it
> away' at higher sensitivities by amplifying the signal. You can see similar
> results from the Sony RX100 IV, which has a more modern CMOS sensor. In turn,
> this gives some scope for underexposing a low ISO setting to protect
> highlights, then brightening later."
>
> They don't mention it, but this also means it will generally be possible to
> underexpose to maintain usable shutter speeds.
>
> This change makes some of the conclusions of Ctein's tests rather moot, as
> one may choose exposure arbitrarily and adjust "exposure point" and curve
> later, with no IQ penalty.
>
> Invariably Moose
>
> --
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|