Random Thoughts... [Photographic Edition]

And that the Canon D30 cost $3000 when it was released. Damn.
 
When my father bought his Zuiko 28/2.0 back in 1977, it was so rare and expensive, that the local master photographer got perplexed enough to say "you got it? GIMMIE A LOOOK!" when he heard he'd bought it.

:D
 
DigitalRev's image stabilization test with Top Gear References!

[video=youtube;S-ARFgNCeAo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-ARFgNCeAo[/video]
 
That DigitalRev guy apes Top Gear so much that his films are... they're enjoyable actually. He doesn't even try not to blatantly ape the TG crew so I don't mind the unoriginality.

Also, I actually get annoyed when people make a point to not step in my shot. Holding a camera doesn't make me special, walk wherever the hell you want, I am only human, I am patient, I do not care.
 
Also, I actually get annoyed when people make a point to not step in my shot. Holding a camera doesn't make me special, walk wherever the hell you want, I am only human, I am patient, I do not care.
Click to expand...
Or, like, you might actually be trying to get people in your shot.
 
LurkerPatrol said:
DigitalRev's image stabilization test with Top Gear References!
Click to expand...

doh_homer_simpson-1084.jpg


I was thinking of posting that. I've always enjoyed DigitalRev videos, they're like Top Gear but with cameras but Cameralabs provide more thorough tests so basically the Fifth Gear equivalent of testing cameras. :)

One serious test coming:lol:

 
If you're choosing RAW I can't see why you'd want anything but uncompressed, this takes all the available data from the sensor and leaves it as it is. Anything else will have to go through various algorithms which will end up in a loss of quality (albeit probably quite marginal). When CF cards were disgustingly expensive compression made a lot of sense but they now both cheaper and larger in terms of storage.
 
Compression: when you need to save space at all costs but still need the post-adjustability and scalability of RAW

Lossless Compression: when you need to save some space, but still need full quality RAW

Uncompressed: space is not a issue, you get full quality RAW and it probably performs a bit faster
 
Last edited:
Dr_Q said:
Anything else will have to go through various algorithms which will end up in a loss of quality (albeit probably quite marginal).
Click to expand...
Lossless compression is just that, lossless. It's like making a zip file of it. After you decompress it, it is bit-by-bit identical.
epp_b said:
Uncompressed: space is not a issue, you get full quality RAW and it probably performs a bit faster
Click to expand...
Might be, but the d3's manual says that lossless compression is a bit faster, since the file size is smaller.
 
I guess it would be faster if you just counted writing to the card not the compression itself. If the lossless compression was flawless I doubt they'd leave the user the option of opting for uncompressed files.
 
Psirus said:
Lossless compression is just that, lossless. It's like making a zip file of it. After you decompress it, it is bit-by-bit identical.

Might be, but the d3's manual says that lossless compression is a bit faster, since the file size is smaller.
Click to expand...

How much smaller is the file size?

Are the compressed files fully compatible with all older editing software? The more you mess around, the more chance there is of reducing compatibility. Old folk like me tend to stick with what we know.
 
Might be, but the d3's manual says that lossless compression is a bit faster, since the file size is smaller.
Click to expand...
Less time writing to storage, but more time processing the compression algorithms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top