Author Topic: [ALREADY DONE] Better Image Quality  (Read 9059 times)

groundlessfears

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 21
[ALREADY DONE] Better Image Quality
« on: August 07, 2013, 03:47:47 PM »
Hi all Devs, as we all know that the feature of improving video quality is already there, with CBR and VBR modes and custom bit rates. But still there is nothing like improving image quality, i was comparing 550D with Nikon D90 and the main difference was the picture quality as well. that 550D produced picture quality was 66 & Nikon D90 produces 73, and the same with all canon and Nikon comparisons, that's the reality that Canon is the leader in Video recording, but we also have to make the image quality optimization beyond canon limits. same like video. so i hope anyone will think to implement this great feature in future magiclantern releases.

Best Regards
Canon EOS 550D 1.0.9
Canon EOS 70D.111A
Canon EOS 5D Mark III 1.2.3

g3gg0

  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3169
Re: Better Image Quality
« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2013, 03:53:55 PM »
hi,

ever read about the dual iso feature?
Help us with datasheets - Help us with register dumps
magic lantern: 1Magic9991E1eWbGvrsx186GovYCXFbppY, server expenses: paypal@g3gg0.de
ONLY donate for things we have done, not for things you expect!

ilguercio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 845
Re: Better Image Quality
« Reply #2 on: August 07, 2013, 04:07:26 PM »
Dafuq?
What is image quality 66?
 ???
Canon EOS 6D, 60D, 50D.
Sigma 70-200 EX OS HSM, Sigma 70-200 Apo EX HSM, Samyang 14 2.8, Samyang 35 1.4, Samyang 85 1.4.
Proud supporter of Magic Lantern.

Yuppa

  • Freshman
  • **
  • Posts: 61
  • 60D + ML (Nightly)
Re: Better Image Quality
« Reply #3 on: August 07, 2013, 04:08:08 PM »
"i hope anyone will think to implement this great feature in future magiclantern releases."

What is THIS "great feature," hmm?

P.S. If you flip your 550D upside down, the picture quality becomes 99.
When you care more about capturing DATA, as opposed to WONDERMENT, you've lost your creative SOUL.

mageye

  • Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 296
  • Atheist
Re: Better Image Quality
« Reply #4 on: August 07, 2013, 05:03:44 PM »
WTF?

'quality' can be assessed in many ways as 'quality' has many facets. Indeed what scale of what quality is being referred to?

I think it's fair to say that the realisation of RAW video through the use of Magic Lantern has expanded 'quality' exponentially.

I am sure there are more 'improvements' that will be made but how much further can the quality be pushed?

I certainly can't complain with all the efforts that have been made to achieve the 'quality' that has now been realised.

It's a cliche but I will say it once more; A HUGE Thanks to all of the Magic Lantern developers ;D.
5DMKII | 500D | KOMPUTERBAY 32GB Professional 1000x |Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II | Samyang 35mm f/1.4 ED AS UMC | Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III | Zoom H2 (4CH. audio recorder) | Mac OS X 10.9.2 | Photoshop CC | After Effects CC | Final Cut Pro 7

groundlessfears

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Better Image Quality
« Reply #5 on: August 07, 2013, 05:09:15 PM »
check this link http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_550D-vs-Nikon_D90

read advantages of Nikon D90 and see line no 3. and then let me know what they mean by this picture quality.?
Canon EOS 550D 1.0.9
Canon EOS 70D.111A
Canon EOS 5D Mark III 1.2.3

g3gg0

  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3169
Re: Better Image Quality
« Reply #6 on: August 07, 2013, 05:20:16 PM »
only they know what these numbers mean.

but in my personal test the EOS cameras get 1 point where nikon get 0 points.
so this is an increate of +inf %. seriously.

conclusion:
get a good lens and your 66 produces images better than the mentioned 73.
learn how to shoot and even a 10 will produce better images.
90% of the image quality doesnt come from the sensor, but the photographer.
Help us with datasheets - Help us with register dumps
magic lantern: 1Magic9991E1eWbGvrsx186GovYCXFbppY, server expenses: paypal@g3gg0.de
ONLY donate for things we have done, not for things you expect!

mageye

  • Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 296
  • Atheist
Re: Better Image Quality
« Reply #7 on: August 07, 2013, 05:27:17 PM »
I checked that link and it is based on 'better image quality'?

Which means what? exactly as I was saying how do you quantify 'better image quality'?

Image 'quality' can have many facets. Such as resolution, optics, compression, distortion, snr ...

The list goes on and they don't say how they work out what is 'better image quality'

It's meaningless without some reference of quality
5DMKII | 500D | KOMPUTERBAY 32GB Professional 1000x |Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II | Samyang 35mm f/1.4 ED AS UMC | Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III | Zoom H2 (4CH. audio recorder) | Mac OS X 10.9.2 | Photoshop CC | After Effects CC | Final Cut Pro 7

albert-e

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Better Image Quality
« Reply #8 on: August 07, 2013, 06:44:44 PM »
I checked that link and it is based on 'better image quality'?

Which means what? exactly as I was saying how do you quantify 'better image quality'?

Image 'quality' can have many facets. Such as resolution, optics, compression, distortion, snr ...

The list goes on and they don't say how they work out what is 'better image quality'

It's meaningless without some reference of quality

If you don't know what image quality is, then you're blind and you don't deserve what you have...your eyes. Look around you!
Sorry, but you seem to be 'unconsciously incompetent' at the moment. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_quality

:-)

mageye

  • Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 296
  • Atheist
Re: [ALREADY DONE] Better Image Quality
« Reply #9 on: August 07, 2013, 07:01:34 PM »
@albert-e

Excuse me? What are you trying saying about me? That sounded very 'personal'

Saying that I don't know what image quality is. I was just pointing out that what constitutes 'image quality' has many facets. I can't really see that you can really argue with that. Also how does that make me 'incompetent' and at what exactly?

Who are you to say that I am incompetent anyway?

And why apologise before insulting my judgement? Don't bother with that one.
5DMKII | 500D | KOMPUTERBAY 32GB Professional 1000x |Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II | Samyang 35mm f/1.4 ED AS UMC | Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III | Zoom H2 (4CH. audio recorder) | Mac OS X 10.9.2 | Photoshop CC | After Effects CC | Final Cut Pro 7

albert-e

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: [ALREADY DONE] Better Image Quality
« Reply #10 on: August 07, 2013, 07:11:28 PM »
@albert-e

Excuse me? What are you trying saying about me? That sounded very 'personal'

Saying that I don't know what image quality is. I was just pointing out that what constitutes 'image quality' has many facets. I can't really see that you can really argue with that. Also how does that make me 'incompetent' and at what exactly?

Who are you to say that I am incompetent anyway?

And why apologise before insulting my judgement? Don't bother with that one.

Look,sometimes I am one and I'm human. Sometime,I can't distinguish what is better, good or best. It's a constructive criticism I may say. I am 'unconsciously incompetent', that was easy. Nothing personal! and I apologize.


groundlessfears

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: [ALREADY DONE] Better Image Quality
« Reply #11 on: August 07, 2013, 07:21:17 PM »
dear there is nothing to fight with this little question, well i think its about some compression? well, there is nothing to blame anyone, actually some nikon users argue too much that nikon produce much better pictures, but you are right that it also depends too much on the lens you are using, as mostly the reviews are based on kit lens 18-55, so there is nothing to blame, i just raised this question if there is any possibility to set compression level...

personally i am a canon lover, and all the way canon is my choice, whatever nikon users say. :)

any ways thanks a lot..
Canon EOS 550D 1.0.9
Canon EOS 70D.111A
Canon EOS 5D Mark III 1.2.3

mageye

  • Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 296
  • Atheist
Re: [ALREADY DONE] Better Image Quality
« Reply #12 on: August 07, 2013, 07:21:33 PM »
@albert-e

You are a man indeed to genuinely apologise. So a genuine thanks for that :).

I don't always communicate perfectly what I actually mean. (basically I am admitting that I too am not perfect and prone to error from time to time ;)).

I was really trying to say originally that to use 'image quality' and stick a number on it is a little simplistic way of assessing if one is 'better' than the other. I don't think so much like that because in the world of photography there are many technical grey areas.

Thanks for being a man anyway and it's good to see that people here on this forum can be civil in difference.

I have to remind myself sometimes that we all have a common love and we should share that love (ha!) ;D (I do mean camera's and, of course, Magic Lantern and stuff!)
5DMKII | 500D | KOMPUTERBAY 32GB Professional 1000x |Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II | Samyang 35mm f/1.4 ED AS UMC | Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III | Zoom H2 (4CH. audio recorder) | Mac OS X 10.9.2 | Photoshop CC | After Effects CC | Final Cut Pro 7

chmee

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1031
  • raw2cdng
Re: [ALREADY DONE] Better Image Quality
« Reply #13 on: August 07, 2013, 07:51:40 PM »
PLEASE - forget these measurements of quality - because, if your pictures are bad, you suck, not the camera! (believe me!) ALL(!) DSLR-Bodies have a stunning technical quality - and a testsite-difference of 66 to 73 does NOT make your pictures better! NEVER!

regards chmee

Doyle4

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 690
  • Canon 5DRAWii & 600Dual-Iso
Re: Better Image Quality
« Reply #14 on: August 09, 2013, 01:23:04 PM »
hi,

ever read about the dual iso feature?

What about 5Dmkii owners? iv read all the place it dosnt support dual iso.. :(

Digital Corpus

  • Freshman
  • **
  • Posts: 66
Re: Better Image Quality
« Reply #15 on: August 12, 2013, 07:59:48 AM »
check this link http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_550D-vs-Nikon_D90

read advantages of Nikon D90 and see line no 3. and then let me know what they mean by this picture quality.?
To reply or not to reply, that is the question...

Let me say this. My day job is a supervisor in a photography department where we have 45-60 Nikon D90 cameras in operation in a given day. I was lucky enough to be the predominant influence as to how these cameras are configured for getting the best, out-of-the-box image quality possible. That being said, we haven't needed to change that configuration after a few years of deployment.

Now guess what? I'd rather drop kick the camera into oblivion after chopping it up with a hatchet, feeding it to a wood chipper, and then milling it into a fine powder. I cannot stand the functionality, performance, or image quality from the camera.

As a full disclosure, I own a Canon 20D, 30D, and 7D with the Tokina 11-16, Canon 17-55 F/2.8 IS, Canon 70-200 F/4 non-IS. There are 2 features I wish I had from the Nikon firmware that have significant use and no equal on the aforementioned Canon cameras. However, to each their own and use the best tool for the job.

I've shot a few misc assignments on RAW with the D90 and I have less latitude than my 30D. The performance of the D90 is crippled when the battery percentage is at 60% or below which causes additional shutter lag when taking a photo. Despite being in Manual, you have to wait for the metering timeout in order to change the exposure after a half-shutter press, which is an asinine limitation as well. Furthermore, shutter speeds are supposed to be 'intuitive' where one goes from 2 seconds, 1.6", 1.3", 1". But when you change to fractional seconds the '1.3', '1.6', '2', and then '2.5' don't make sense to the average person whereas 0.8", 0. 6", 0.5", and 0.4" do make logical sense. Oh, and the body like to over expose by 1/3 of a stop under normal circumstance and 2/3rds if you have active d-lighting on at normal or higher. The latter of which we've compensated for, btw.


All of that said, I'll mirror the same sentiments that the others have mentioned previously:
  • buy glass
  • learn to take good pictures
  • the body doesn't matter that much.

I hate the D90, but it works for what we do and it's sufficient for the average Joe.
7D w/ ML | Tokina ATX 11-16 | Canon 24 mm pancake | Canon 40 mm pancake | Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS | Sigma 150-600 Sports