Compact Flash Card specs

41 replies [Last post]
Dave R Smith
Offline
Joined: May 10 2005

This afternoon I bought a Canon 350D - but no memory card yet .

The bottom of this page:
http://www.savastore.com/productinfo/product.aspx?catalog_name=Savastore&product_id=10282386&pid=44
mentions:
Viking 1gb High Speed 40x Compact Flash Card
Viking CF1GB-HS

I acknowledge different makes may mean different reliability etc but do cards have different speeds (40* mentioned here) at which they can accept data - or are they all the same?

If they do differ - this will no doubt impact on how many fps and whether video mode will work.

Note: my camera uses CF, but above link also mentions Microdrive - is this another memory card (can't find it in my handbook).
If so - are there pro's/cons in choosing between CF and microdrive?

foxvideo
foxvideo's picture
Offline
Joined: Sep 9 1999

This should answer all your questions:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-7699

Dave Farrants Fox Video Editing

dvcam
Offline
Joined: Nov 25 2004

and in simple terms we use Lexar Professional 4GB 133x speed. We shoot Raw for vital shots. Cost almost £200 but worth it. I gave away my microdrives.....not to be trusted.
dvcam

Dave R Smith
Offline
Joined: May 10 2005

Thanks Dave and DVCam,

I'll ignore microdrive.
That is an excelent link Dave - most ad's don't mention a write speed and the article certainly sorts the wheat from the chaff.

I also see that Kingston uses Samsung components.
I'm a bit of snob when it comes to technology - and wouldn't touch Samsung - though I haven't tried their gear in recent years.

My manual mentions its buffer to hold shots pending a write, but not the size of the buffer. It does however say a 'busy' message will be given when at capacity.

In the linked survey, can't see mention of a 'busy' delay, so I'll buy a cheaper/slow CF for starters and see if it inhibits in practice.

I see the seagate test said:
15) Midway through testing, this card was accidentally dropped from a height of no more than 2 inches onto a wooden desk. The drop was fatal.

Manual says care re vibration - but 2 inches is a bit worrying for 1 or 2 gigs worth of shots at risk.

Chris.
Offline
Joined: Nov 5 2000

Couple of things I'd like to add

I once dropped a Microdrive, it slid from one shelf of a computer desk and landed with a slap on the printer shelf below. It never worked again. I'd always buy solid state. Likelihood of dropping cards is high.

Last week I bought a 1GB San Disk ULTRA II CF card from eBay. The seller had 100% positive feedback and 100+ sales. I only realised later that it's actually a fake. Someone has even written a guide on eBay which suggests that up to 95% of the CF cards for sale on eBay are counterfeits.

Packaging is very convincing.

Dave R Smith
Offline
Joined: May 10 2005

Thanks Chris.
Dropping cards 2 inches is also an issue(see my previous post) so no option but to be careful and download asap.

Mentioned my negative thoughts on Samsung to retailer, and he said re memory - they have a good reputation.
I bought a Viking CF with no 'write speed' mentioned for around £8, half a Gig.
I deliberately went for a cheapy, so any delayed shooting etc would be easy to spot - and therefore know it is a genuine issue.
Testing camera for first few frames - it did come up busy - but I was in an office and flash was engaged.
Went to window, disengaged flash - and it did 14 consecutive shots no problem (I stopped firing then - so more may be possible). It shoots at about 3 fps on unscientific test.
Copying camera to pc the read rate would appear to be about the same (8mp shots via usb).

Willow
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2002

Cheers Chris,

I have been really tempted to get a card or 3, seeing your post stopped me dead.

Today I managed to get some 1GB CF Sandisk Ultra2 Cards from Costco for 21.99 +VAT each.

Willow

Arthur.S
Offline
Joined: Jun 2 1999

We use CF for our wedding photography. We do not use higher than 1 gig cards. We do not use the latest okeykoky speed cards. The logic being: Why take a chance on losing a WHOLE weddings worth of photos on one card? And, why do you need all that extra speed, which just decreases the reliability of the card? 40X is plenty good enough. Reliability is ALL! ;) IBM microdrive caused absolute chaos a couple of years back. Thankfully, we weren't part of it!! :)

dvcam
Offline
Joined: Nov 25 2004

High speed is progress, CF cards are much more reliable now and also the best come with recovery software for mishaps. Almost all the professionals that I know shoot RAW so need the bigger cards. On a 4 GB card I get 170 shots. We shoot 3 cards at our weddings. Makes sense though about using many small cards so if one goes down you only loose a few shots. Also, interesting point about dropping the cards…..never gave much thought about that until you read what has happened to others.
dvcam

Dave R Smith
Offline
Joined: May 10 2005

Interesting comments Arthur & DVCam.
'why do you need all that extra speed, which just decreases the reliability of the card? '
I wasn't aware of this Artur (but similar theory in DVD land), but DVcam's comment suggests this has improved over time.
My Canon EOS 350D shows '9' in the display for max no of consecutive shots.
Presumably a factor of CF type/speed and camera buffer size.
If you were doing sport - or something where rapid bursts are required, then it's probably more of an issue.

On card dropping..
Each time I place my camera down, with a slight clunk on the table, I wonder how much of it is tolerated by the card.

fuddam
Offline
Joined: Nov 19 2005

seen stress tests via hardocp.com where cards were dropped, thrown, drowned, frozen, and still continued to work. only thing to really cause grief IIRC, was being hammered into pieces, which isn't too surprising

;)

Willow
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2002

Dvcam

I see the side you put for larger cards – Your RAW sizes would take a lot of the buffer, so I can also see the need for quicker cards in certain circumstances.

A trade off needs to be done in Pricing V Size/Speed.

On the sizes though, I accept 4gb is more contained than 1gb card’s, which would give you only 40ish images, before changing, that’s a bit more than 35mm film did.

Do you also take a laptop or device, to download them onto there and then?

To me, the larger cards seem to have a possible greater risk of losing (corruption) more data – 3gbs or 7gbs more.
I have dropped many cards – accidentally, and now think they are quite robust – mine are all Sandisk I don’t know if this makes a difference.
I think the greatest hazard, is interruption (in any form) when they are being written to. I have unplugged an SD card, rendering it totally unreadable – Sandisk replaced it
I have read where photographers number then use their cards sequentially, as they only have a certain write/read life.

My logic is have many 1gb cards then copy / transfer them to a portable storage device with a internal 2.5 100gb hard-drive. When I swap cards in the camera I copy them to this and format another card in the camera.
I also got a back-up 40gb HD (a Samsung, Dave) too. I also carry spare batteries for it.

But now almost all my shots are contained on this Hard drive, and if something happened to that…

I don’t know, I think it’s simpler for software to recover data from a Hard disk, easier than it is a card, because of the physical aspect, platters as opposed to solid state.
Can anyone verify that?

Willow

dvcam
Offline
Joined: Nov 25 2004

This might help a few new members........
http://www.mymemory.co.uk
4 GB for fifty quid.

dvcam
Offline
Joined: Nov 25 2004

I should add that the Lexar Pro has software on the card that you download onto your PC BEFORE you use it in your camera. Maybe other cards do the same!

Dave R Smith
Offline
Joined: May 10 2005
Willow wrote:
But now almost all my shots are contained on this Hard drive, and if something happened to that…

Willow

I read someones comment (possibly yours Willow?) that they copy the photo files to 3 different places before doing anything in line of cropping/editing etc.

In video world, I keep my source video files on a seperate drive to my output files.
Then, if one drive fails, it's easy to recover something usable.

I plan to do the same with photos - 1 drive for back-up, another for 'working source' and probably a sub-directory for 'edited photo's.

I appreciate you are on the move Willow, probably working off a laptop, so extra drives are cumbersome.

DVCAM
I see that's a 133* write speed.
Possibly too fast if there is any truth that faster write speed means increased chance of failure?

dvcam
Offline
Joined: Nov 25 2004

Yea you could be right Dave, thing is with high speed cameras that shoot RAW you have to wait for the data to write to the card. I can shoot off three images but then have to stop and wait for the record light to go out. The faster I can do this the less time I need to take the next shot.
It makes sense to use 2GB cards at say 80x and this is still a big improvement on the 12 shots per roll when I was using film. Changing a card is no different to changing a film back.
A little tip, I write/copy the data over onto three hard drives before I wipe the card. One will be the RAW files, and two will be RAW converted to TIFF. Then I work on one lot to make the final Jpegs. Might not be the correct way but this is how I do it.

Dave R Smith
Offline
Joined: May 10 2005

DVCam:
>A little tip, I write/copy the data over onto three hard drives...

Must have been your wisdom i've been quoting.

Haven't tried/sussed how to do batch processing with adobe photoshop, but the software that came with Canon 350D 'Zoombrowser' and 'Digital photo professional' has utilities for batch processing - which could include changing resolution - or just copying elsewhere with your own prefix entered.

I normally try and stick to one application(photoshop) that does all, but they are so quick and easy to use and good at displaying directories/sub_directories - so a real time saver.

Canon 350D display for quick fire images based on immediate memory, with 1* .5 gig card:
Large (not large with high compression): 9
Raw: 5
Raw + Large: 4

Alan Craven
Offline
Joined: Jan 26 2001

It is worthwhile protecting your original image files (aka negatives) by making them "read only", and using copies for all editing.

I keep backups of all original files and finished edits on CDs - more reliable than DVD. Though I have also got backups on external HDD too. I only ever use DVD RAM as a backup medium.

Dave R Smith
Offline
Joined: May 10 2005
Alan Craven wrote:
It is worthwhile protecting your original image files (aka negatives) by making them "read only", and using copies for all editing.

Good tip Alan.
I normally rely on file/directory naming conventions.
When same file name exists on multiple drives it's a good safety measure.
I once got caught out when I did a 'file / save as' - thought software was pointing to one directory, so said 'yes' to the replace and later realised it was the wrong one.

So your solution would also help me/others where it isn't obvious which version is being edited.

Willow
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2002

Great link Dvcam but a few days late for me. Not so sure about the Arsenal video chip though!

I have Sandisks RescuePro software, it came hidden in the packaging of those horrible tough sealed security plastic cases, where you can see the product, but cannot get to it. I crunched through it with scissors to get to the Card, coming to a harder bit I stopped – or the scissors did, this turned out to be a mini CD! I had cut into the disk but luckily it was still readable – so I copied it. When I looked at the cover it said … Containing free software. Agggh. Impatience.

I also like your workflow (always wanted to use that word in context) routine. The questions I would like to ask are, how long does the rendering of images take? Do you copy the converted RAW / TIFF image or convert it again for the 3rd copy? And do they all originate from the Card or the Hard disk.
I once converted to TIFF in lossless form, I couldn’t believe the output file size.

Dave

When I wrote
But now almost all my shots are contained on this Hard drive, and if something happened to that…
This was in the context of not being near one of my PC for days on end to download them to. I used to have a laptop and a Lacie HD – until some tealeaf had them.
Currently, as you know I am in the UK and have been for 2 months. Now I have 85gbs + of images on my portable storage device, I fly back Wednesday, luckily this can go as hand baggage now, I was dreading that and the cameras + lenses going in the cases.

I digress

I use the PSD to copy to from camera, before using the cards again, typical copy times are 1gb cards in under 2mins, 4 for the 2gbs. As I said, until I can get to a PC (I have 2, 1 dedicated to images – P4 2gb DDR2 2x100gb SATA drives - I need to be looking at more drives now).

My routine, I back up onto the 70x from the camera, then download to PC when possible, copy to drive 1, then from there onto drive 2 (why I ask Dvcam) as this now is 3rd generation. I also take this opportunity to delete any wasted shots on the PD70x before the 2nd transfer, I also archive in RAW to DVD, on both machines. I also batch rename them but keep the original (2nd generation) as the camera named it.
When I go near the other PC, AMD3200 1gig pc3200 4x100gb PATA drives, I follow the above routine, again downloading but now erasing from the PD70x by formatting it.
My drives are partitioned and logically named, like; Image, Back-up etc

Alan

Your tip, wish I had thought of that! Could have saved me on more than a few occasions.
How are CDs more reliable than DVDs?
I use Ritek DVD disks with Nero and never have had a failure. I also burn them x2 speed, probably get failures now!
I did see a comparison chart on storage, CD was the least favourable way to archive due to cost.

Willow

Dave R Smith
Offline
Joined: May 10 2005

Thank-you for the update and back-up tips Willow.

Note:
A friend was stopped bringing a laptop on plane Sweden/London a few nights ago.
Possibly flight/carrier dependant.

Have a good trip back.

dvcam
Offline
Joined: Nov 25 2004

from willow....how long does the rendering of images take? Do you copy the converted RAW / TIFF image or convert it again for the 3rd copy? And do they all originate from the Card or the Hard disk.

Willow
This is how I operate, not necessarily the right way but it suits me.
My PC is only 200GB main HD. It has a multi card reader built in and the first thing I do is COPY not move, the files from my card to a CD. Each CD will hold about 75 files. The CDs are then stored for safe keeping.
I then go into Hyper Utility and convert CCD-RAW to Exif-TIFF files. I save these on the same HD in My Pictures and name the file. Each pic is about 24.4 MB and takes about 20 seconds to convert. This is done in batch so I can get on with something else.
I have a Belkin wireless modem/router so again I COPY onto my other DVC PC which has three HDs. I first copy onto drive D and then onto drive E. I then check to make sure they have copied over before I format and clean the card.
I then open the files in PS, have a play around and then save the final image on disc as a JPeg. This sounds a lot of messing around but it is a safe way of doing things.
I have only just started to shoot RAW and I have a lot to learn so until I can get myself on a course to learn this I am going to stick with this method.
I have just inserted 140 photographs of ships into a DVD and I had to reduce the Jpegs by 50%. Still good quality when viewed on a PC.
This weeks wedding we are doing photos and video, all photos will be Raw from the main camera and Jpegs from camera two.
dvcam

Willow
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2002

Dvcam

You scared me when you said
"I then go into Hyper Utility and convert CCD-RAW to Exif-TIFF files".
My mind conjured up various scenarios! But then I googled it and came up with Fuji software for converting into TIFF - phew.

I do not think this software can cross platform, so is dedicated to Fuji cameras and their algorithms, so your conversion times would be thus.

My photo fixing is more basic, as I do not have customers to satisfy.
I shot RAW and Jpeg. Mostly I edit with ACDsee, its adequate for what I do, I also love Picasa2 for its simplicity, to size cropped photos for prints with no borders.
I have not got profiled screens, to be aware of all the colours. So I have WYSIWYdon’tG.

I have experimented with something, probably Canons DPP - Digital Photo Professional. I seem to remember it took forever to do conversions, but I cannot recollect to what size I was doing or amount.
I have a load to do now, and will post more meaningful results on conversion times soon. If anyone’s interested.

I think we are all on a learning curve, when it comes to RAW conversions.
I cannot make my mind up if shooting in RAW is better – but I still do it.
My main issue is space.

A couple of articles I found interesting.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/rawtruth1.shtml

I don’t think there is a wrong, or right way, when it comes to saving images, just whatever suits that person. I was interested as your method may have been better than mine.

Dave

Got back yesterday, 22hrs door to door.

The regulations had changed and you could now take a bag, In Dubai, everyone had normal hand luggage – even Americans, so it seems a UK thing.

W.H Smith (any relation?) is making a fortune selling bottled drinks inside the terminal now.

Finally, I really realise I am back with the internet speeds greatly reduced !!!

Willow

Dave R Smith
Offline
Joined: May 10 2005

Hi Willow,
When I saw you name on 'New Posts' I said to myself -if it's Friday it must be Thailand.
An old joke from when I lived in Chester - American/Japanese tourists used to 'do' one country each day.

Interesting that things are returning to normal (atleast for non-UK) and no, WH Smith is not a relative to my knowledge.

I've looked around the web at raw versus (fine)jpg and found litlle difference in detail.
A local photographer mentioned that RAW was 16bit and jpg is 8 bit - so better for post production tweaking of colour.
I had read this in old articles - but I had expected that there would also be 16bit jpg variations availableby now.

So, 2 days ago, camera set to RAW+fine jpg and went to Mountain bike track in forest.
Shady with blue skies and cloud, late efternoon. Used flash.

Excelent results quality wise - but when I tried the RAW conversion (pc software) with pre-sets it suddenly made the sandy ground more vibrant and more depth to the image. You can probably do similar tweaks with the jpg, but it takes more time/skill to tweak the many settings.
Downside is you can't really batch process a large number - unless of a similar location/light.
I was reading in Photoshop though that 'Actions' can contain a step where user input is required - so maybe this is the expedient option.

At time of writing I intend to set for RAW+jpg even for hobby stuff - unless I'm running low on Flash card space.

I think I can get 39 RAW+jpg on half gig card.

dvcam
Offline
Joined: Nov 25 2004

Dave, I think you are like me.....on a learning curve.
I used to shoot JPeg and if you view them through the camera or PC then they are fine.
The thing is if you alter a JPeg image in PS and crop, colour correct or what ever....and then save as a JPeg you get a quality drop. If you shoot RAW transfer to TIFF you can alter and copy as much as you like, you will still maintain the quality.
I was out at Bowood last week (they hold 2 weddings there) on the other wedding was a couple of guys that I know who are from Chippenham and they shoot JPeg.
I think it was you who started this thread so congats to you, very interesting to hear what others do.
dvcam

Alan Craven
Offline
Joined: Jan 26 2001

I have tried RAW with an Olympus C5060W using a Scandisk Extreme III CF card and found that the camera writes no faster than it does to a cheap Jessops own brand card. It takes up to 10 seconds to write a 7MB file, whereas the best quality Jpeg is "instantaneous" and around 2.5MB. I can only assume that the limitation is the camera write speed.

To avoid the quality drop with edited jpegs, I have considered doing a batch coversion to tiff using Photoshop before editing. My doubt about this is the possible quality drop due to the file conversion. The camera will produce tiffs of around 15MB, but these take even longer to write.

dvcam
Offline
Joined: Nov 25 2004

Buyers beware photography monthly has a page on fake sandisks and list a web page to take a look at
fakesandiskcards
just seen this and thought I would share it with you.
dvcam

NickHampson
Offline
Joined: Mar 14 2006

Actually RAW isnt 16 Bit but typically 10 or 12Bit so if your shooting you will have either 1024 or 4096 levels of detail in the picture rather than 256 in your JPEG - thats all per channel.
This can give you latitude to stop highlights blowing out on bright days and deal with exposure issues, aslo you will not see the JPEG compression artifacts if you need big blow ups.
Its an easy switch so you can swap across when you may need to get the extra latitude on bright and dull days or those shots like bride entering the church, your inside and it bright outside.
Its important if you shoot RAW to know what your doing as its got a Linear Gamma you need to shoot differently and do more in post.
I've got a book on Linear Gamma if anyone is intereted I'm happy to post it out as long as we make sure it gets round the interested parties.
I very much doubt there is 'no difference' more like if you use a nasty RAW converter and dont sharpen (this is done in camera for JPEG on the comusmer cams like 350D's) and dont give its a film like gamma curve.
Canon and Nikon give out pretty poor RAW converters, photoshop isnt bad now on v3.2, Phase One made the best one for pro use and even have a light version thats about 50 quid I think.
As for CF cards they take a hell of a lot of abuse I can vouch for that, test new ones you buy with family etc for a while.
Personally I think if using digi cams like 350D's you should be much more worried about the camera, these dont have the professional shutter mechanism of pro models and the other parts are at the same level. They will jam eventually if not serviced the shutter rating is 10 time shorter than a pro version for cams like the EOS 300, 350, 10, 20, Nikon is pretty similar.
Crappy lenses are as much more likely to let you down than a CF card. I attended a wedding to shoot some flowers for a florist last year and had to lend an camera to the 'professional' who had a 300d and the lense that came with it, he was charging a fortune and when I tried to help him fix his cam saw he was having to shoot as 1600ASA in the chirch as the lens was F4.5-5.6 muppet!
I personally wouldnt shoot without Dual slots in a camera to ensure I have RAW and JPEG on sepeate cards(not the format thats impoartnt its the backup), these are also backed up as we go along onto portable hard disks (GiGaVu), later backed up to latop and burnt to DVD - its pays to be sure.
The most important thing is a good eye to take a shot but if the equipmnet doesnt let you get that shot or fails you could be Eve Arnold and not have a shot to show.

Nick Hampson,
1x3Hz Brain cell, 10 fingers than never hit the right keys, 2x MkI eyeballs (used).
Disclaimer - the user is not responsible for any bad spelling and grammar in this post, it is entirley the fault of Microsoft, Apple, HP, Dell, Adobe, Avid, Autodesk or whoever you dont like this week.

Alan Craven
Offline
Joined: Jan 26 2001

DVcam,

Could you give us a link to the page where fake Sandisks are discussed please? I have tried a range of search strings on the Photogrphy Monthly site and drawn a blank.

I am reasonably confident that my Sandisk is genuine. It was purchased from Warehouse Express and came in the usual packaging, with documentation and a mini CD of Sandisk's Rescue Software.

Later - I have successfully registered the card with Sandisk, so the Serial No. must be valid. It looks as though my camera is the limiting factor: the only thing I picked up on the site was a possibility that my camera might not like 1GB cards. I will look into this.

Dave R Smith
Offline
Joined: May 10 2005

Just typed a reply and then it vanished?
Here goes again..
Thank-you for feedback guys.

DVcam
Yes - on a similar learning curve - and it's a pleasurable one find new dimensions in an old hobby. Likewise - tried web search for 'fakesandiskcards' - no joy.
Can you povide url or are you a shareholder in the magazine.;)

Alan,
>To avoid the quality drop with edited jpegs, I have considered doing a batch coversion to tiff using Photoshop before editing. My doubt about this is the possible quality drop due to the file conversion. The camera will produce tiffs of around 15MB, but these take even longer to write.

I've had similar thought - if need to do more than crop/downsize, then make first step a conversion to non lossy format.

Nick,
Great detailed info - thank-you for correcting what I heard re how many bit.
Maybe I quoted context wrong.
Photoshop CS2 manual refers to 8/16/32 bits per channel - that's not to say the source isn't 8/10/12.
Can't find anything on Linear gamma in Photoshop CS2 manual - so have to check into this later.

I have just been checking out how the auto-exposure bracketing works, so I can experiment with achieving greater tonal range in difficult conditions (subject against sky) and also prove to myself that middle exposure is the right one on other occasions.

dvcam
Offline
Joined: Nov 25 2004

ephotozine.com
look under forums and you will find the link.
.....off now to start my wedding, nice little church but a marquee reception.....wellies?
dvcam

dvcam
Offline
Joined: Nov 25 2004
NickHampson
Offline
Joined: Mar 14 2006

I dont think there is much on Linear Gamma in the Photoshop manual as its really more about the workings of the format, I'm happ y to send you the book I've read it and its very useful but not required for reference so I'm happy to share.
here is a link to an excerpt of the book I have on the Adobe site a good intro.

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf

Its worrth trying to under expose difficult shots in RAW as the extra levels are more at the darker range than the highlights, hence linear gamma and why its worth learning about. Its quite possible to shoot what in 35mm Film terms would be massively underexposed and get a lovely shot.
You mentioned the modes in Photoshop its is worth using 16bit where its suported even for Jpegs as you will keep banding, and artifiats as low as possible (especially important when you do the initail levels, curves ajustments.) In CS\CS2 16bit (its actually 15bit) is getting better and some parts now support 32bit, but you may have to come back down to 8 bit for some effects as its not fully 16bit.
Also if quality is really important try and do all work in ajustment layers as this make sure the effects (levels, curves and whatever you do) are non destructive.
Personally I dont have an issue with JPEG, RAW workflows take a little getting used to but are worth it where the quality needs and the shot is difficult. I still take along my old faithful EOS5 as in certain occasions film is still required for its extra dynamic range, but you can now, in static shots, use exposure bracketing to get that range back, but I doubt that will help you at a wedding, a swicth to RAW and underexpose is possibly the easiest bet.
Just watch out, it takes a little practise to get the most from and the right tools, I would really recommend Phase One's RAW conversion software or taking a look at apeture/lightroom, photoshop RAW (3.2) is quite good but its a slower workflow and time is money. Dont get me wrong Photoshop is the best tool for complex work but for most wedding photo stuff its a hammer to crack a nut.

Nick Hampson,
1x3Hz Brain cell, 10 fingers than never hit the right keys, 2x MkI eyeballs (used).
Disclaimer - the user is not responsible for any bad spelling and grammar in this post, it is entirley the fault of Microsoft, Apple, HP, Dell, Adobe, Avid, Autodesk or whoever you dont like this week.

Dave R Smith
Offline
Joined: May 10 2005

Thank-you for the extra in-depth info Nick. All read and digested.
I have the pdf.
I like what it says - the bottom line is to try, experiment and familiarise yourself with the camera and post-production capabilities.
Thank-you for the offer of the book - but I will pass for now.
While it's summer I will bias towards hands on practice rather than theory.
(Planned a day off yesterday for phtotography but it lashed down with rain).

Most of my stills camera work is purely a hobby - but has bonus of using the hardware/software of my day job - video.

Willow
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2002
If its Sunday... it must be Sathon...

Nick

Welcome to this thread. I read your replies with great interest, you are certainly knowledgeable, I hope to see more from you. Are you a pro?
I certainly agree with your comments regarding lenses.

But, I am not so sure of your review of Canon’s DPP’s as an“pretty poor RAW converter”.
I use V 2.0.3.7. I don’t think there is anything wrong with it apart from the speed when I batch converted 62 RAW images to Jpeg, it took 31mins! (I saw this in the Date Modified tab), though this is the only conversion tool I have used, so have nothing to compare.
There is a function to control linear gamma in DPP! It is also able to convert to 16bit TIFF and keep the exif data intact, something I don’t think all converters can do this. Can they?

I have read about Capture One Pro 3.7, and other converters, for anyone interested:
http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/rawconverters/rawconverters.htm

My initial argument Jpeg V RAW is on the basis of disk space taken – I shoot RAW and Jpeg, if I want an enlargement / more detail, I would manipulate the RAW image.
I do not see why anyone would want to take X amount of shots, then take another day processing them, then saving as TIFF files because they are lossless - (unless they are doing it commercially, then they will (should) have the most suitable software).

I hope these conversion sizes help to explain to others.
RAW (from camera) image size 9,126kb
Jpeg (from camera) image size 2,112 KB 24-bit colour
Jpeg (from DPP software) image size 5,184kb 24-bit colour
TIFF 16bit (from DPP software - no work) image size 46,713 KB 48-bit colour
Jpeg (from TIFF) image size 997 KB 24-bit colour
Jpeg/2 (from TIFF) image size 6,221 KB / 48-bit colour

The format Jpeg2 / Jp2 is also lossless, - though Photoshop doesn’t recognise these files – maybe there is a plug-in.

My camera is set to display both the histogram AND the image. The parts of the image that are over/under exposed flash, so I know what I have done at the time.

Lots of my shots are in harsh light with deep shadows or have reflective surfaces.
So, I open and convert the same file twice, once for the highlights then the lowlights, then layer/digital blend them
After doing that, the manipulated image is named and saved as a Jpeg.
Going to print with a massive file will not give you a better image, that’s dependent on the printer’s resolution, unless the print is A4 or above, obviously the bigger the paper….

The limit of human vision is about16 pixels per mm to discern maximum sharpness.

In a perfect world, it is best to get the exposure correct in the first place.

Willow

Arthur.S
Offline
Joined: Jun 2 1999
Quote:
My camera is set to display both the histogram AND the image.

Useful. Which camera have you got Willow?

NickHampson
Offline
Joined: Mar 14 2006

HI Willow,
Thanks for the welcome, knowledgeable hmm not sure, I am blessed with a very good memory and a strong desire to get the most from the stuff I have.
Pro err well yeah 'ish I used to do a lot of photography and hot out of it into software and VFX work (Shake/Flame etc) now doing my own think part time and getting into multimedia and video and having to do photo work again as I cant put up with seeing doddering old gits turn up for shoots with knackerd 120 film gear :-)
Have always had a personal passion for Photography.

I dont want to bad mouth canon's software perhaps my comments are overly harsh. I have just found that using other conversion tools is better in terms of workflow and I tested several tools at a shoot so I could see what the different converters did while still having the picture in the viewfinder and found that the Phase one software was better in terms of accuracy of colour and options and the sharpening was the most accurate.
I did as an aside rate the RAW shooter essentails package which I believe is free, I found the RAW conversion (not the tweaking tools) to be better than Photoshops (3.2beta).
In terms of use today I like the phase one stuff and the Beta of lightroom looks very good altough I have not had chance to test out the quality of the RAW conversion.
I think many people think that converting RAW is just a simple process , tests showed that there is a significant differnce in final quality.

I agree TIFF is a big file to save, JPEG2000 are nice as you say just as long as you dont need to give them out. I think whatever works for you is fine, I would always shoot RAW as I cant remember to swap and I might not have the time + Using a 1dMkIIn or 20D you get 200+ shots on a 2Gb card.

Nick Hampson,
1x3Hz Brain cell, 10 fingers than never hit the right keys, 2x MkI eyeballs (used).
Disclaimer - the user is not responsible for any bad spelling and grammar in this post, it is entirley the fault of Microsoft, Apple, HP, Dell, Adobe, Avid, Autodesk or whoever you dont like this week.

Willow
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2002

Arthur

I have a couple of 350Ds.

Which I now want to trade up to a 30D – if anyone wants to give me a 5D to review… I would rather have that.

Nick

“I did as an aside rate the RAW shooter essentials package which I believe is free”

This is from the Pixmantec website

Adobe Systems Inc has acquired the assets of Pixmantec ApS.
RawShooter Essentials will no longer be updated but will be available for download until shortly after Adobe Lightroom 1.0 is released as a shipping product.
For information regarding the sale of Pixmantec assets please check our newsletter or the FAQ

Perhaps Lightroom /Photoshops (3.2beta) has many of the essentials of RSE – Pun intended.

Willow

Arthur.S
Offline
Joined: Jun 2 1999
Quote:
I have a couple of 350Ds.

I'm suprised the LCD is big enough for you to see much detail Willow! You must eat plenty of carrots. :)

Willow
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2002

I guess thats why I am called...

Perhaps why I want to trade up!

How do you insert a image???

Alan Craven
Offline
Joined: Jan 26 2001

See the first page of this thread.

http://forums.dvdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=39242

There was also another more detailed account some weeks ago. A search on my user name should locate it.

Willow
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2002

Arthur, who says I see much detail - just a blurry image

Thanks for the assist Alan.

That proves I am even more!!!

Willow