SkintBrit said:
Does the D7000 do the VERY basic in camera RAW processing of the FF models?

Yesish. While I've used the D3s and D700 alot I don't own them so I've actually never tried their raw processor. The D7000 has a robust raw processor but it converts the processed files to jpeg so I'm not sure of the full answer... I'm sure somebody knows around here though

Does the D7000 do the VERY basic in camera RAW processing of the FF models?

I am officially demanding batch raw processing and starring. I shot some stuff for my day job(design studio) on my D7000 (in Raw). Well apparently there is no camera raw update for Cs4 for that camera and I don't have view Nx here either...

soap said:
Really? I need to look into a free Lightroom plugin for that.
I've taken a good handful of bracketed shots and dumped them in my pile of "to do later" stuff.

Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to say, soap. Thanks for verbalizing (typesetting?) it for me.
I'm home now, and memory served:
http://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/lrenfuse.php

Really? I need to look into a free Lightroom plugin for that.
I've taken a good handful of bracketed shots and dumped them in my pile of "to do later" stuff.
Thanks for the tip, jonnyapple, I'll look into that.
and thanks for the walkthrough, SZR, HDR is something I've always wanted to play with.

Welcome to the forum, SZR, and thanks for posting this for me. If I'm in a situation I think would benefit from HDR, I bracket just in case I ever get to the point that I like my HDR merges (not so far). I'll have to try this, but I don't own photomatix. I'm not at home, but I know I have a free lightroom plugin that does something similar (I want to say LR enfuse or something).
Thanks again for the info.

Only /normally/ in CMYK colorspace, which we should not be working in, rather converting to prior to printing (if printer needs it).

Please don't take offense at the nitpick.

Willis said:
Thanks for the guide SZRimaging. I'm going to have to mentally book mark this post. I've been wanting to get into HDR for a bit, but I don't have bracketing on my my D40, and I don't generally lug around the tripod. Hopefully I'll be able to graduate to my girlfriend's D80 once she upgrades.

5 frame burst with 0, +2, +1, -1, -2 and throw out the +1 and -1. Depending on what software you use, they have become pretty good at lining up hand held shots. I do some of mine that way, opting for the tripod only when using longer exposure times. Or mirror lockup.

soap, thanks for the correction. I am pretty sure in at least 32 bit that there is an intensity (k) value. When I get home I guess I need to g reread the book about that.

SZRimaging said:
First, let me explain the difference between bit depths that some of you don't understand. 8 bit, 16 bit, and 32 bit have nothing to do with dynamic range, per say. What it means is in an 8bit environment you get 8 places to describe what a color is at that specific pixel, so RRGGBBKK. 16 bit allows 16 places to describe the color at that pixel, so RRRRGGGGBBBBKKKK. And 32 bit is 32 spots of information, RRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGBBBBBBBBKKKKKKKK.

Not to nitpick, but this part is incorrect.
The "places" are the length of the binary number. An 8-bit number can store the values between 0 and 255. Three color values @ 8 bit = 16777216 (256^3) possible pixel values. A 9-bit number can store the values between 0 and 511.
Thinking of them as "places" misses the significant issue that each additional bit doubles the total number of possible values, it doesn't just add "one more".

When talking about camera sensors we talk about bits per color channel, not to be confused with the bit-depth of a monitor, which is expressed as the sum of the bit depths of the three channels. ie a 24 bit monitor supports 8 bit red, 8 big green and 8 bit blue values. Whereas a 14 bit camera supports 14 red, 14 green, and 14 blue. (IE - the best LCD can only represent 16,777,216 values whereas your 14 bit RAW can represent 4,398,046,511,104 (in theory))

So there is no "K" (intensity?) value, and in your 8-bit example it would be RRRRRRRR,GGGGGGGG,BBBBBBBB, with each position to the left representing twice the value of its neighbor to the right.

< /nitpick >

Thanks for the guide SZRimaging. I'm going to have to mentally book mark this post. I've been wanting to get into HDR for a bit, but I don't have bracketing on my my D40, and I don't generally lug around the tripod. Hopefully I'll be able to graduate to my girlfriend's D80 once she upgrades.

So in the latest D700 thread, you guys asked about what I do for HDR.

First, let me explain the difference between bit depths that some of you don't understand. 8 bit, 16 bit, and 32 bit have nothing to do with dynamic range, per say. What it means is in an 8bit environment you get 8 places to describe what a color is at that specific pixel, so RRGGBBKK. 16 bit allows 16 places to describe the color at that pixel, so RRRRGGGGBBBBKKKK. And 32 bit is 32 spots of information, RRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGBBBBBBBBKKKKKKKK. As you can tell, you get more precise with each spot, meaning you hold a lot more detail about what that pixel actually is. Which means you can then edit in a much more precise way. To be fully honest, I am not 100% sure that it is an even distribution of rgbk as I have listed on there, but you should get the idea.

Now then, on to my method. What I do is first convert a set of images that are +2,0,-2 together. I have found you really don't need more than this for 90% of scenes. Then I save the file as a .hdr (raidience (sp?)). I take that file into photomatix and do a total of three tone mappings to 16 bit space. One with saturation all the way up, strength all the way up, and luminosity set all up or almost all up. I believe there is another adjustment right under this, but I am writing this from memory. Then I make sure that the white point and black point do not, or clip as little as possible. Save the tone mapped file as a 16 bit tiff.

Second tone mapped image take the color saturation and turn it all the way down. Next take the luminosity an set it back to about normal levels. Whatever that missing adjustment that I can't remember also changes here. Basically back to normal levels. Punch up your black and white points so that they clip a bit. You should have a decent looking B&W image in the preview at this point. Save this as another 16 bit tiff.

Now the third tone mapped file. Go into tone compressor and play with the settings until you have a natural looking image that contains pretty much all the information. Save this as a 16 bit tiff.

Open up the third tone mapped image in Photoshop. This is your base image. Now open up the other two, copy all, and paste them as new layers into the first one. Create a layer folder and put the two you just pasted into there. Make sure the B&W one is above the color one. Change the blending mode on the B&W to hard light, soft light, or overlay. Now take the opacity of that folder and turn it down, normal blending mode. Play with it until the right level of overly processed and normal looking is achieved. I range anywhere from 18% to 70%, depending on what I want in the image.

As with any technique, this is the general base. From here you can play with it and alter it to suit your style.

I am not worried about anyone trying to steal the technique, because, it isn't the technique as much as the subject matter that really matters in the photo. Plenty of people know how to process a beautiful image in the darkroom, but the ones that have the most compelling subjects are the ones that make the best photographs.

LOL:

NEW! Ultra-compact camera with no noise and image quality beating that of a DSLR—Guaranteed!*

*Sensitivity equivalent to ISO 0

Pitch black darkness shooting with no noise & absolute image quality :)

@recent convert - thx confused yaw & roll.

NikoDoby said:
"My" video kinda brings up the fact that the camera used to make it (Casio EX-F1) can shoot HD video and take full res photos at the exact same time! It has separate video record and shutter release buttons. That's something I'd like to see on more DSLRs.

Niko we are getting back to your old post Niko, about Integration of Video and Photo

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=647

which BTW is a great idea and might just happen some day

Pete

"My" video kinda brings up the fact that the camera used to make it (Casio EX-F1) can shoot HD video and take full res photos at the exact same time! It has separate video record and shutter release buttons. That's something I'd like to see on more DSLRs.

@PBBrigido:
Phil, it's a good idea but computing will have to come a long way. It would involve taking multiple shots (imagine something like the 800 fps thing Niko posted) and then aligning them in camera before summing the signal to get the final image. Instead of having the border that gets automatically thrown away, though, you could have the camera autocrop the image to the best set of pixels (you might lose 1% or 10% of the image depending on how much the camera is moving). What I like most about this idea is that it's compatible with in-lens VR, so it could be part of a super-VR system that is only on pro cameras at first. Why pro only? Because you'd need some pretty amazing processors to align the images (even photoshop takes a long time with a pretty fast processor and a lot of RAM). But if you had hundreds of frames per second you could do it right now using photoshop to align the layers--that would just be really inefficient. It would be nice to have the camera put them together

How about this idea for taking the idea a bit further? Install in-camera gyros to track camera motion without a way to actually move the sensor like sensor-based image stabilization. Instead, using the data that the new gyros get during the exposure along with the lens data about lens focal length, you could figure out how the images should be aligned without actually running a processor-costly autocorrelation algorithm.

shivaswrath said:
to the OP, AGREED!

SD back up a must!!

I think Micro SD card for the entry are cameras, this is so easy to add to the camera, the same size as a port for a cable or something

Pete

to the OP, AGREED!

Vari-angle live view is a must, I find myself in such awkward shooting situations (on the floor, on the grass, etc.). . .would love to shoot those shots with ease!

SD back up a must!!

And for the love of god, face tracking??!! Hello!! Just find the eyes and in mutli-point AF select it. . .

the rest I don't "need" but won't kill if I had. . .

Would it be possible for a system to allow a 10-15% border and around which the image is continously digitally cropped within the border so that no internal motions need to occur? Granted you lose some image....but for a long focal length, it may be a nice feature. I don't even know if I properly stated my thoughts...so a translation may be needed to put it into more technical terms.

edit: What's more, you could have the option to control the amount of a border to have...essentially increasing or decreasing the amount of VR you have. The larger the border (or the smaller the picture) the larger the VR...and thus the more the image will be able to "bounce around" inside the border.

edit 2: In this scenario, all lenses would have VR abilities...including prime lenses. That would make for some really nice low light shooting.

PS. I posted this exact message a few minutes ago...but it isn't allowing it to be seen. I think my messages are not being displayed by the spam filter sucks them up.

Would it be possible for a system to allow a 10-15% border and around which the image is continously digitally cropped within the border so that no internal motions need to occur? Granted you lose some image....but for a long focal length, it may be a nice feature. I don't even know if I properly stated my thoughts...so a translation may be needed to put it into more technical terms.

edit: What's more, you could have the option to control the amount of a border to have...essentially increasing or decreasing the amount of VR you have. The larger the border (or the smaller the picture) the larger the VR...and thus the more the image will be able to "bounce around" inside the border.

edit 2: In this scenario, all lenses would have VR abilities...including prime lenses. That would make for some really nice low light shooting.

tai said:
@Recent Convert - Wasn't the advancement in the new Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro hybrid the fact that it cold compensate for roll? I could be mistaken, I don't keep nearly so close to Canon news as Nikon, but if so, it shows it's doable at the lens level.

Canon's "Hybrid IS" compensates for pitch (camera tilted up/down), yaw (turning camera left/right) and also (that's the new part) for lateral movement. This is obviously of interest to the macro-shooters (a field I am fairly ignorant about). What it does NOT DO is correction for camera roll, which is "turning the camera around the lens axis". A lot of beginners initiate roll movements when they press the release. I'm not a beginner, but I can see the value of roll-compensation . . .

Let's quickly rehash to principle of in-camera VR (or IS): if you pitch your camera up, you grab more "sky". The corrective lens (close to the mirror) get's pushed down, to correct for that, and put more "ground" on your sensor. The left/right mechanism works accordingly. The lateral compensation also shifts the corrective element, but the algorithm requires two motion sensors that look for sideways movement (somewhat trickier to do, because it requires precise inertia measurement, while tilting can be accurately sensed by gyroscopic effects, though Nikon does not use a gyro, it uses inertial measurement as well). If the camera gets twisted around the optical axis, shifting lenses will not compensate. Instead, the sensor needs to be counterrotated (Sony does that). The major drawback: sensor movement is not visible in the viewfinder, but it could be observed in life-view.

Recent Convert said:
You are probably aware that this would mean that you no longer get WYSIWYG in the viewfinder. Personally, I like the VR in the lens, because I can see how steady the picture gets. On the other hand, VR in the lens can only corect for pitch and yaw, while a VR at the sensor level can do pitch, yaw and roll compensation. For this reason, it would be nice if a future camera had roll correction at the camera level, but (in the spirit of the famous Nikon backward-compatibility) keep the pitch/yaw correction at the lens level.

I agree I had a pentax K10 for a while, by far prefer the lens VR system, On Pentax I constantly taking pictures to see if the stabilizer actually worked. But if they could make a in body stabilizer that worked together with the lens VR system than I think we could have a winner, incl pitch/yaw correction

Pete