CI Photocommunity

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

TVSD vs SONYbs DSCV1

fotografz

Well-Known Member
Mike,

When shooting RAW with the G series and my S-50, and when using the Canon File Viewer Utility provided for RAW conversion, you must select "Custom Effect" from the "PhotoEffect Mode" menu. Once that is done, you can alter white balance either using the eye-dropper or by selecting from a drop down menu. In addition, you can alter contrast, saturation, and sharpness. All of these (except maybe the white balance) are better done in PS.

There is not an exposure levels control like when you use the same Canon Utility to process Canon EOS-1Ds, 1D, D-30,D-60 or 10-D RAW files. However, you can transfer 16 bit per color channel files by selecting that option in your preferences for the RAW processor.

I tried to process the Canon P&Ss in Adobe's new RAW converter that I use for the 1Ds and it doesn't recognize the files. So, no help there.

Were I you, I'd seriously look for a D-60, which are now less expensive used, and get a Macro. The quality and control after the fact will be much better. I believe the Adobe RAW processor plugin for PS reads the D-60 RAW files and offers way more control after the fact.

If you still would prefer a G3, I have a mint one for sale that I replaced with a G5. E-mail me if interested.
 
M

mike_nunan

Hi Marc,

Thanks for that info. Having no experience of RAW conversion software, I'm probably missing a simple point here, but can you give me a bit more detail re the exposure level control? I can't understand how this can be anything more than an equivalent of levels in PS, given that the raw data will already reflect the effects of the exposure settings chosen when the shot was taken.

For the purposes of my task, all I really want is unprocessed, high-bit data that I can access in PS. The main enemy is any kind of white-balancing, since that will not add anything good to an image of a neg frame -- quite the opposite in fact. All the corrections I *do* want (inversion, orange mask removal etc) can be applied in PS by judicious use of custom curves. Will I be able to do this with a G3 do you think?

I did consider a D30 or D60 but the G3 appeared a more convenient option because Ohnar make a handy film copier attachment that will fit the front of a G3 and give 1:1 reproduction, for a very modest price. Although the price used D60s has dropped considerably since the introduction of the 10D, I would still probably spend double the money in comparison with the G3/Ohnar-copier combo.

Cheers,

-= mike =-
 

loom

Active Member
Hi Marc,

I am not familiar with the task you will be doing, but I am wondering that a budget film scanner can suit you need? A G3 costs almost double the Minolta Scan Dual III.

Most of my friends who are doing residency in dermatology are using a Nikon Coolpix 99X to copy the images from microscopes, since it can be attached directly to the eyepiece. That is a different story though.

Best, Shu-Hsien
 

fotografz

Well-Known Member
Mike, I think RAW exposure control is more like exposure in the camera (except it doesn't effect DOF), As if you shot at a one stop difference. It doesn't seem to create noise the way a underexposed shot does when you lift it with PS curves. I may well be wrong on this. But it seems a RAW file lifted in RAW processing creates less noise. I also think it is even MORE important to point out that over exposed images can be corrected by a stop or so to fix blown whites. That is something you can't do in PS. If it ain't there it ain't there.

Other than blown highlights , you are correct that PS is a very powerful program that allows a lot of corrections in tandum with one another to get great results. That's why not havng RAW in the TVSD wasn't much of a problem IMO. But you have to watch the highlights.
 
M

mike_nunan

Hmm, interesting stuff. Maybe the difference lies in the fact that the RAW data is linear, while full res images (TIF or JPEG) are gamma corrected. Curve or level adjustments would be more accurate based on the linear data. In fact it ought to be possible to work on the linear data in PS, since the Canon File Viewer allows conversion of RAW files to linear 16-bit TIFs (I just checked this on powershot.com)

Sudden thought: maybe the RAW conversion can do better than PS because of the effects of the Bayer conversion. E.g., if you have an area that is blown in the blue but not in the other channels, then the "pre RAW" exposure compensation to reduce the level may result in better RGB data than compensation after the Bayer conversion has been applied. Anyway, interesting though this diversion is, it's not germaine to my situation because bad exposure isn't a problem in a copying application (or shouldn't be!)

More to the point, I'm wondering if I've been too hasty in writing off the TVSD. Is there a way to get non-white-balanced high-bit data out of that camera, does anyone know?

-= mike =-
 

narrbl

Active Member
Dear Ken,

I wanted to thank you in appreciation, for going to the trouble of taking and posting these comparison shots. I'm sure everyone appreciates there is a great difference in the image chips besides other factors of these twoquite different cameras - small Sony CCD vs. Canon's 9 times larger and patented compensation-&lified CMOS sensor.

In Photoshop, something interesting comes out in trying to balance the results even so. Moving the white balance to somewhat equalize the tone of images (to the 10d values) brings more out of the small TVSD's result. But then levels/curves adjustments turns up something unusual. There is in fact not color information below a certain luminance - this is the biggest difference in the two shots, and goes a long ways towards understanding some of the special qualities of the TVSD in more normal lighting.

A quick take, which is all I have time for this morning, is that this use by Contax of luminance only, for lower-light detail, is much like what the eye effectively does. Plus, in some PS curves etc. experiments I am doing to try to achieve with Canon images what Contax does on TVSD, there is further much more capability in the Contax to resolve contrast differences - but only until its sensor betrays it into the most dark picture areas. That is probably electronics plus the lens, given the identical sensors in the two smaller cameras - and that I appear to find some of the same behaviour in these 10D shots - better contrast detail the Contax picks up where it does have enough light.

The two of these clues seem to add up to that Contax/Kyocera really did do something interesting with the TVSD, taking another path to gain what they have in printable quality at a certain stage of sensor-processing development. This stands besides the apparent amount of contrast-smearing averaging in the s50, which gives bland pictures in spite of line detail. Perhaps for lack of R&D budget, on line detail Contax in this generation didn't apparently get best full system output resolution from their pretty evidently superior lens.

Such paradox makes one all the more interested in what the creative mind now excluded from this board may know about next generation of TVSD cameras. It is after all Contax's turn after the recent release of the s50.

Regards, Clive
 

narrbl

Active Member
Marc, thanks very much for your detail about the lack of Canon Raw 'exposure' control or PS Raw access to S50 etc. cameras. This has to be the real triumph of the market-construction/pricing department plus influence on Adobe in it, as there is simply no possible technical reason for this - the full range of luminance information will be there in the Raw file of course.

Many games. As with the 'foveon has less resolution, can't do color' agit-prop(aganda). I wish persons would do as you and Irakly very evidently do in your work, and look at the pictures.

Regards, Clive
 

narrbl

Active Member
Marc, meant to add on this busines of s50 and raw files: have you been able to try BreezeBrowser as a means to get full choice on image intensity range? This is inexpensive, and covers all the Canon P&S as well as DSLR's. I notice it can create various forms of 16 bit files that Photoshop can read, as well as its own somewhat intriguing abilities perhaps for images that will need no more than quick conversions.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Interested in what you find in usefulness vs. s50. I don't see any way to get more than 8-bit images out of a TVSD, however. The one possibility for better seems to use exposure auto-bracketing feature, and combine in photoshop. Not much use for active shots however.

Regards, Clive
 

fotografz

Well-Known Member
Clive, Thank you for the tip. Unfortunately there is no support for Mac platform :-(.

But it is interesting that it can be done, so why didn't Canon do it? Breeze Browser is available for my G5 and S-50 !!! But just for the other platform. Anyone know if there is a RAW exposure control on these programs?
 

narrbl

Active Member
Marc, a tough one there. I used to use Macs too.

I dug around just a little on this using dpreview.com, and it seems that the problem with the Photoshop raw plugin is that it's out of date: it covers S45 but doesn't cover S50 yet. People seem to think also that this won't be fixed except as part of the PS8 upgrade when it appears. So that way is out.

The other suggestion was to use the Canon FileViewer to convert raw to TIFF - then load the TIFF in Photoshop. I wonder if you have tried this, and whether that TIFF is actually 16-bit? It would be good to know as I am still considering the S50.

As to why Canon would leave out what's needed themselves, I suspect it must go back to very out-of-date practices that all the good features should only be available in the highest priced products.

And I will not get started on this, as we will soon be back wanting to talk where a young designer has been leading us, which apparently can't be done here.

Regards
 

msadat

Well-Known Member
also do look @ the g5, i think it is a fabulous camera, same ccd as s50 = but much better lens., if marc does a comp wg5 and tvsd, i think he will = like the g5 more!!=20

adobe raw developer might be able open all sort of files from all sort = of camera and process them but it does not mean that it knows how to handle = raw files for a specific camera unless they officially support it. case & = point the kodak 14n, the ARD opens it and processes the file and but it knows nothing of the camera specific stuff. when i was working on debugging = (my now returned) kodak 14n with kodak support, i brought up the adobe as an alternate and i was told that the raw developer math is not up to date = to correctly process 14n files
 

ksklo

Well-Known Member
Dear Clive,

Thank you for your detailed analysis of my shots. I never realized the favorable contrast difference between the 10D and TVSD at reasonable luminance in the background as the darker front buildings captured most of my attention. This is indeed a very interesting observation you made, and it does prove that the tiny little P&S has its advantages. All in all, it is a great camera and if the flash works in a more predictable manner for me this would become my ideal everyday companion.

Regards,
Ken
 

narrbl

Active Member
Dear Mehrdad, Thank you, yes, the G3/G5 are quite fine cameras and I did look at them closely, probably preferring G3 for better apparent match of sensor and lens thus less fringing. I am trying however as I think a number of persons are interested, to have a camera with a smaller size. Something about today's world and taking certain kinds of pictures in it, also having a camera with one to do so, seems to ask this. And then we want it to be in capability a Contax or Leica rangefinder too....

Thus the hope and interest, perhaps towards next models it will turn out, of TVSD.

On the raw problems, yes, fully appreciate. Very probably the camera manufacturers could be more cooperative here, and they're the ones that have to.

Regards, Clive
 

narrbl

Active Member
Dear Ken,

Yes, that difference was important to me, and so.... ;). But we will see, and some of your pictures really show what is possible with the TVSD, all things considered about it fairly.

Regards, Clive
 
Top