Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
HOLD EVERYTHING!
what's this Brumbaer's Co in the software EXIF entry?
Does that mean there is noise reduction aleardy applied there?
Then it is not in the raw.
However, if it is just raw development, W/O NR then all above comments hold
Theirry, which is it?
Regards
Victor
Hi Victor,I did open the file in C1 version 4 (whatever they are callingit) and the files are remarkable. I 'pushed' only 2.5 ev but still, Thierry you guys have something here.:thumbs:
Very little noise even at 100% and pushed.
Even if this RAW file had been cooked (NR incorporated) - and I accept Thierry's assurance that it hasn't - it would still be remarkable since the final product is an ISO 4800-6400 equivalent file with a far better detail/noise ratio than the fully processed results from any other camera I've seen at those ISOs with this shutter speed.
Regards,
Amin
Hi Thierry,
I wasn't doubting you, but thanks for the re-reassurance .
All the best,
Amin
Thierry,
I may be wrong here, but what I expect we are seeing with this file is that it actually takes a +3EV push to get us to an ISO 800 equivalent with the file you provided. It still happens to look very nice but it's not getting us to an ISO 6400 as we've assumed so far just ISO 800.
Your thoughts?
Thanks,
Greg
Thierry,Dear Creg,
I do not know who claimed that it was ISO 6400, but not me. All I have said is that I have shot this at ISO 800 and SLIGHTLY under-exposed (purposely).
Best regards,
Thierry
Hi Amin,I was the one who claimed that it was an ISO 6400 equivalent after being pushed 3 stops during RAW conversion. This is based on the file having been taken at a native ISO 800. Greg, are you suggesting that the file, processed at default exposure settings in a RAW converter, is an underexposed ISO 100 file (hence ISO 800 after pushing three stops)?
Thierry,
I know you didn't claim ISO 6400, sorry if I implied that. I'm trying to understand if it's normal behavior for an ISO 800 shot to appear 3EV underexposed in the raw editors. I've tried with both Aperture and ACR and see the same thing - I have to bump up the EV by +3 to get to what I'm roughly guessing another camera would be showing with the same ISO, Aperture and shutter speed.
Graham thought what was happening might be related to the Brumbaer conversion. Just trying to get your thoughts since I only have this one sample to go on for the eMotion 75. A series of ISO 100,200,400,800 halving the shutter for each subsequent shot on the eMotion 75 would answer the question I suppose.
Thanks,
Greg
It seems to be a peculiarity of Brumbaer. The actual exposure had a perfectly balanced histogram in my sample.Hi Amin,
Yes, that's what I'm suggesting it behaves like in the raw editor. I only have Grahams files for the e54LV to go on but I'm guessing they behave the same. You might want to download his samples to see what I mean.
Thanks,
Greg
Greg,
I know you didn't imply it was me. No harm.
I honestly don't know how Stefan (Hess) does the conversion, but I know for sure that he does not apply any NR, even "behind the stage", for having spoken with his colleague who has helped him to write this tool (Rainer Viertlböck).
Actually the Sinar eXposure does deliver a DNG which is right on the spot, concerning my exposure (slightly under) and with the exactly same noise level as the Brumbaer DNG.
Eventually, it doesn't matter what happens, to me, only the end result is of interest, IMO. Even if the file would be 3 stops under and then pushed, what difference would it do? Actually, I am pretty happy of the result, when I see other samples published at this ISO setting.
But if of interest I can do such a test on the whole ISO range with changing the shutter speed.
Best regards,
Thierry
Thierry,
That's good to know, so it sounds like it's related to the Brumbaer conversions. It helps clarify what we're looking at in the file.
Thanks,
Greg
easy to sort out, was the original exposure reflected/in camera or was the exposure incident/from meter?
if this is from in-camera metering then the dark subject is fooling the meter into adding exposure. When it was shot deliberately under you are left with a result that is probably what an incident meter would have yielded from the get go.
ISO is something in digital that we don't have good norms for, at least to my knowledge. IOW, shoot an 18% grey card under this light, what do you get? 128,128,128? It is dependent on the gamma also of the capture space.
Interesting to look at the histogram, it is pushed all the way left. But if you turn on the clipping display, setting black to 0, exposure to 0, contrast to zero and brightness to 25 there is nothing clipped. it is a very dimly lit soft picture. Part of that has something to do with it imo. the light is actually very soft and even, and all of the exposure is in the green channel, the best channel.
regardless of above, it seems extraordinarily good.
I have pushed M8 files shot at 160 three stops and they look much better than you would expect. But that is dependent on the source lighting, which usually has to be soft and even, like we have here. But pushing 640 is not going to look like this...