Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 17, 2006, 4:53 PM   #31
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

TDN wrote:
Quote:
Foxbat, I've never heard anything about compression hardware in cameras...can't find anything on the web either.
A lot of the processing is likely being performed by ASICs. A generic processor would be too slow to process the amount of data a camera needs to process and maintain adequate throughput.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2006, 5:06 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Wigan, UK
Posts: 568
Default

give me a break, 300 photos in 1 hour?? that's 12 seconds for a photo. unless you use auto adjustment and batch process them, but where's point in that?
it took me over an hour just to select photos I wanted to keep from over 150 I took. I eddned up with 50 and processing them took about 5 hours. and it involved everything from color adjustment to curves and levels. so don't say you can do it in 1 hour. loading them all in RAW converter and pressing auto batch is just like shooting JPG.

greg
gfurm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2006, 5:58 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 1,868
Default

gfurm wrote:
Quote:
give me a break, 300 photos in 1 hour?? that's 12 seconds for a photo. unless you use auto adjustment and batch process them, but where's point in that?
it took me over an hour just to select photos I wanted to keep from over 150 I took. I eddned up with 50 and processing them took about 5 hours. and it involved everything from color adjustment to curves and levels. so don't say you can do it in 1 hour. loading them all in RAW converter and pressing auto batch is just like shooting JPG.

greg
That's what I thought, but I am always willing to listen to someone else's viewpoint.

Took around 1500 photos on holiday recently, kept around 500 and probably processed about 50 of them over a week long period. Other things keep cropping up, so no time to do anything. The ones processed are of course the fav ones.



Darren


Dal1970 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2006, 6:15 PM   #34
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 79
Default

gfurm wrote:
Quote:
give me a break, 300 photos in 1 hour?? that's 12 seconds for a photo. unless you use auto adjustment and batch process them, but where's point in that?
it took me over an hour just to select photos I wanted to keep from over 150 I took. I eddned up with 50 and processing them took about 5 hours. and it involved everything from color adjustment to curves and levels. so don't say you can do it in 1 hour. loading them all in RAW converter and pressing auto batch is just like shooting JPG.

greg


First of all, have you tried Lightroom? It is a batch RAW processor. You import all your RAWs in one shot either manually of automatically. Then you examine the photos. delete the ones you don't like. Next you review each photo, adjust exposure and WB in a few short seconds. WB changes are evaluate by the softwareagainst thenext photo so that if it is shot in similar condition, it is automatically applied. You don't have to spend more than 10 seconds for each photo. When all is tweaked, you review them again and do some individual changes. After that, you batch develop/export all of them in one shot.

BTW, you candownloadAdobe Lightroom Beta for free and try it out yourself.



Foxbat121 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2006, 6:13 AM   #35
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Quote:

benjamin: since you showed up can you tell me what is UK dollar? that's what you mentioned in sigma forum about the price of their new camera. I thought we have pound sterling in UK. but since you're well informed about something which is not out yet (K10D I mean) maybe you know better about that as well?

for everyone else: that's a question for somebady who wants everything perfect and accurate.

for 300+ pictures from one day. that's a lot of space wasted for something you'll never watch again don't you think? especially for someone who's looking at them at full size trying to find all hot pixels and unsharp edges not to mention all this terrible noise. And how's the quality after shooting through plane window? I bet it's better with Nikon or Sony than with anything else.
I prefer taking one good picture instead of 20 rubbish and exactly the same hoping for something good to come out.

greg

Sorry, I meant the U.K. Pounds or whatever...

I shoot that much shots and I always view them.

Correct, I pixel peep a lot, that is why quality is very important to me.

So far, shooting through the plane's window was fine. :-)

I took 300 over useful photos.


BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2006, 7:23 AM   #36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 344
Default

BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
Sorry, I meant the U.K. Pounds or whatever...

I shoot that much shots and I always view them.

Correct, I pixel peep a lot, that is why quality is very important to me.

So far, shooting through the plane's window was fine. :-)

I took 300 over useful photos.
Ben, actually I found that arguments of "card is damn cheap" or "I can bring more cards" or "you used to have 36/24 exposures when using film" are making no sense at all..

Back to 2004, when I had my *ist D, I "killed" my one 4GB card just in less than 12 days. I did shoot only jpegs also, not to mention to shoot RAW! Fortunately, I did still have another Ultra II 1GB with me, otherwise I could shoot no further for the remaining few days!

For photos from the airplane, here are some of mine and I'd be glad to share with you folks:-









Well, the above photos were taken with my K100D, *ist DS and *ist D respectively..

RiceHigh
http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh
RiceHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2006, 8:19 AM   #37
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

RiceHigh, those are great shots!

The first one is nice but rather blur out like. :-)

The second one is good. The plane seems to have just taken off (Judging bythe mainwing flap position) It is always nice to take advantage when the plane is turning toward yourshooting direction; you can really point down toward land. :-)
BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2006, 9:18 AM   #38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 284
Default

ewwwww, they're greasing each other's wheels.
milrodpxpx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2006, 9:38 AM   #39
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Wigan, UK
Posts: 568
Default

foxbat: I'm using Rawshooter. It has all the same features like lightroom, auto white balance exposure compensation and all other. but adjusting all of that, like WB, exposure, levels, curves, saturation, sharpness takes time. Examining 300 photos to select only those which are pin sharp takes time,. so please don't say you can process tham all in an hour or two because it's imposibble if you want to do all of it. unless you call processing only deleting obviously blurred photos and letting the software adjust everything automatically, but that's just like shooting jpg. if you want quality pictures from your RAW files it takes time do do it right.

greg
gfurm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2006, 9:59 AM   #40
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9
Default

My two cents is that I agree with Benjamin'swish that Pentax offer a (lossless) compressed RAW file, at least as a menu option. If it can be implemented in software (as a firmware upgrade?), then why not? Being able to store twice as many shots on a card is a good deal no matter what size card you use or how cheap memory is. If there is a performance hit, then you could just turn it off! Seems to me that this would be a nice feature that Pentax could offer at no additional cost (aside from the software implementation, which appears to be well understood). Besides, it just seems wasteful to me to NOT use lossless compression!

On a personal note, I would love to shoot RAW, but I can't justify the huge file sizes. I just spent a week hiking on Isle Royale (on Lake Superior) with my DS and a 512 Mb card (and a 128 Mb backup - I accidentally threw out my other 512 a couple of weeks before!) and I ran out of room using jpegs. I had to cut the quality down a notch to keep shooting.I bought a 2 Gb card when I got home, but that didn't help me when I was on the island!


dperreno 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 3:06 AM.