Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Konica Minolta

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 2, 2005, 10:11 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 198
Default

berti23, I agree on the things you say except of Minolta would implement it in the new update, as I doubt that there would be update at all...
I've asked them whenver they are going to do something about noise and white balance in artificial lightning, but they told me that firmware is already issued:-\
Also seems that their new creation Z5 still has a lot of noise so maybe unless they change something phisically(e.g. size of the CCD) noise would stay.
Anyway if you going to organize poll I would be glad to support it by all means.
sensovision is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 2005, 7:28 AM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 8
Default

sensovision wrote:
Quote:
I've asked them whenver they are going to do something about noise and white balance in artificial lightning, but they told me that firmware is already issued:-
I'm affraid your're right!
Hmm. So we should find anyone how knows alot of psosü and mips assembler.

Quote:
Also seems that their new creation Z5 still has a lot of noise so maybe unless they change something phisically(e.g. size of the CCD) noise would stay.
:? It's all crazy with this digicam-market. More resolution, "less" quality. I'm happy to own a Z3 and not a Z5!

Quote:
Anyway if you going to organize poll I would be glad to support it by all means.
Any free Web-Space available? With php-scripting?
berti23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 2005, 7:42 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 198
Default

Quote:
:? It's all crazy with this digicam-market. More resolution, "less" quality. I'm happy to own a Z3 and not a Z5!
exactly, I'm fan of Minolta company and hope they would be first to turn away from putting more megapixels into camera and looking into the quality.

Quote:
Any free Web-Space available? With php-scripting?
please contact me via PM or e-mail and let me know how much space do you need and what exactly you're are going to use it for ok?
sensovision is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2005, 2:12 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
greenboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 101
Default

Look at the IMATEST data in this user review: http://www.photohobby.net/webboard/s...lldata&No=2200

The Z5 compared favorably in noise with the Z3 in spite of more sensor pixels. After shooting a few hundred with the Panasonic FZ20 I have good hopes the Z5 will be a little more to my liking in the 5 mp category.

...And there's always NEAT IMAGE (or Noise Ninja).
greenboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2005, 2:22 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
greenboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 101
Default

RAW doesn't have anything to do with noise performance per se. It's data that has not been interpolated/massaged in-camera, and then that process gets moved into one's computer instead. This has some advantages for control such as color saturation and contrast instead of committing one's settings andf their camera's to jpeg or tiff files, and the extra bit depth allows one to correct white balance, exposure etc. This means that errors during shooting can be compensated for with WAY less impact than working with a 24 bit file, or that if one changes opinion about the exposure, etc, that they can do that BEFORE they even really begin conventional image processing.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...aw-files.shtml
greenboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 5, 2005, 7:26 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 198
Default

hello greenboy! You've misunderstood me, I said about noise because if we had RAW file instead of JPEG we'll have more information which isn't compressed and therefore it could be processed more effectively and without bigger losses(e.g. by programs which you've mentioned), and afterwards packed in JPEG. Otherwise we have to deal with JPEG and re-compress it again which lead to losses of information whish you this or not:-\ This is what I mean previously
sensovision is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 5, 2005, 11:32 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
greenboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 101
Default

sensovision,

I see : } ...That was my mighty powers of speed skimming just after reading similar topics concerning RAW on other forums ; }

I will remark though that in my experience extra fine jpegs only contribue a miniscule amount of "noise" as compared to what is coming off the sensor - usually I can't even see it at 200 or 300% magnification even after a large number of image processing operations. The worst artifacts of jpeg at that compression still seem to be the inexact color values from 411 or 422 subsampling, and not the 8 x 8 crosshatching.

Yes, after working alot with JPEG prior to getting into digital photos, I was dismayed that so many images I recieved had been saved and resaved multiple times in jpeg, adding to cumulative errors. A couple times at decent compressions is really hard to see at big magnifications but beyond two times it starts being a little bit like a zerox of a zerox of a zerox.

RAW is really a nice choice for that as well as the extra bit depth for camera/shot corrections early in the process, and I wish we could get it for say the Z5 though I think the manufactures feel that people buying less expensive cameras probably are not going to afford the huger amount of storage required, or maybe have computers that can efficiently deal with deeper and larger data. But if I get A2 or A200 it sure isn't going to be TIFF that I save images in ; }

I've seen you on a couple other forums; I guess KM enthusiasts get around : }

greenboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 24, 2005, 2:59 AM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 8
Default

greenboy wrote:
Quote:
I will remark though that in my experience extra fine jpegs only contribue a miniscule amount of "noise" as compared to what is coming off the sensor - usually I can't even see it at 200 or 300% magnification even after a large number of image processing operations. The worst artifacts of jpeg at that compression still seem to be the inexact color values from 411 or 422 subsampling, and not the 8 x 8 crosshatching.

Some nice infos:

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pix/rawvsjpg/
berti23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2005, 12:00 PM   #19
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 43
Default

A few samples comparing RAW vs. JPG on my Z2: http://usuarios.lycos.es/mato34foto/...w/ejemplos.htm

Sorry, it's only in spanish.

Actually I have a lot of photos in which the RAW is more powerful than JPG in bad conditions (editing later), or using RAW digital-compensation, or in "shadow/lights" in Photoshop... there is a REAL difference in terms of noise and color in these situations, but I haven't updated my web since a long.

It seems quite difficult modify the firmware, and I think it's almost impossible. Anyway go on, and try for it.

See you.
Mato34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2005, 12:53 AM   #20
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 8
Default

Mato34 wrote:
Quote:
Actually I have a lot of photos in which the RAW is more powerful than JPG in bad conditions (editing later), or using RAW digital-compensation, or in "shadow/lights" in Photoshop... there is a REAL difference in terms of noise and color in these situations
I never thought that jpeg has such a "big impact" on image quality. :O
berti23 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:45 PM.