lad_lueck

<p>The 5D3 does NOT have iTR.</p>

<p>Canon MIGHT be referring to using *rechargeable* Lions, and the very real dangers of multiple cells with different capacities. These types of incidents result in a cell being totally discharged, and having reverse current forced through it from the remaining cells in the pack.<br>

You can find out a lot more about this very real danger here:<br>

<a href="http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?107-Smoke-and-Fire-Hot-Cells-and-Close-Calls-The-dangerous-side-of-batteries">http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?107-Smoke-and-Fire-Hot-Cells-and-Close-Calls-The-dangerous-side-of-batteries</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/">http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/</a> maybe?</p>

<p>These are spectrums from a Gretag Macbeth i1 Spectrophotometer. The round graph on the right shows two spectrums. The thin black line is 'daylight', and the thicker red line is the bulb being measured. You can see color temp below that, and on the left, CRI. Ignore the illuminance, as I held the spectro varying distances from the light.</p>

<p>tungsten flood 150 watt:<br>

<img src="http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3825/11880097835_d42a128e30_o.png" alt="" /></p>

<p>phillips 470 lumen 8w dimmable 2700k LED:<br>

<img src="http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3695/11880380353_91aa8f397b_o.png" alt="" /></p>

<p>150w equiv CFL warmed up:<br>

<img src="http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2848/11880097995_dca5d64f12_o.png" alt="" /></p>

<p>2D flat flourescent:<br>

<img src="http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3687/11880947056_79fbd1220b_o.png" alt="" /> </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I did a fair amount of testing from my 1Ds to my Epson R1800. I found that the *printer driver* knows best what to do. Set the printer to it's highest DPI setting, do NOT uprez your images' original pixel size in Photoshop. Whatever that works out to, to fit the print size, will do. The printer will properly dither each pixel to produce the best print, even at noseprint distances. That's the best you can get, and given that Epson can work with dot placement in the 1,000th inch or smaller distances, and it is taking dot *color* into consideration, they do it better.</p>

<p>Organic: noise (aka film grain).<br>

You can easily add what you are used to seeing by upressing your files 200%, then adding monochromatic Gaussian noise (to taste), and then printing. You'll have much more accurate colors, more accutance/sharpness, and when you learn the tools, many more options to excel. </p>

<p>Andrew,<br>

I've followed your posts over the web for many, many years, and want to echo the other sentiments, above.<br>

THANK YOU very much for continuing to educate the masses! You provide a knowledge base that just isn't seen on 99.9% of the web.<br>

You are very much appreciated!</p>

<p>If LR is like ACR, you probably have saved a crop setting to the default setting.</p>

<p>Good God, what alot of typing, without actually telling the OP what to do!<br>

1. Expose the image as bright as possible, without blowing the sky. (This gives you a greater effective bit depth, making the areas of banding/posterization physically smaller when viewed). Then reduce 'exposure' levels in your RAW converter, or PS.<br>

2. Use PS's Add Noise (Gaussian, Monochromatic) tool to add a tiny amount of noise to the sky. This will eliminate the banding very effectively, without adding much/any visible grain that ruins the image. If you want to get fancy, view the individual R or G or B channels, and only add noise to the one(s) that band the worst.</p>

<p>I actually did timed tests before and after I added SSD's to my homebuilt. (2 x Intel x25-m 80GB. 1-OS, 1-swap files/cache, then 2 HDD's for storage).<br>

Bridge's image cache builds *MUCH* faster w/SSD than disk. Other activities are just 2-4% faster.<br>

The bonus with SSD's is in things like system start up, Apps snapping open instantly, being able to run *3* AV full scans at the same time you are doing other things, with almost no slowdown, etc.<br>

I overclocked my PC 50%, but the difference the SSD's made was easily 10 times more noticable. Expensive, but worth it to most users.</p>

<p>The lens is mostly excellent for most users. There are a lot of them out there, and some of them have problems. Mine doesn't: <a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~ladlueck2/sharp2470.htm">http://home.earthlink.net/~ladlueck2/sharp2470.htm</a></p>

<p>Mark Pierlot wrote: "Those who claim that your comparative testing is flawed are wrong, and do not understand scientific methodology. You used both lenses in the same conditions, and the results from the shorter zoom are clearly inferior to those from the longer zoom. "<br>

Mark, 'scientific methodolgy' uses strict controls to test for a *single* variable at a time. The OP's test did nothing remotely like that...</p>

<p>There is some vertical movement in the 24-70 shot, but it mainly looks like it lacks contrast. Take the lens filter off!<br>

There's only one correct way to test AF. Camera on a tripod, shutter tripped by timer or remote release, target lit by sunlight, and large-enough vertical or horizontal dark lines (depending on which AF orientation you are testing) on a light-colored background.<br>

That eliminates all the variables. If you have good AF under those circumstances, then other factors can be tested for.<br>

To test the lens' ultimate sharpness, use a camera that uses live-view, and focus manually.</p>

<p>"O.K., so here is a pair of images that shows that the Sigma SD1 actually spanks the Nikon D3x!"</p>

<p>That is NOT what the images show. They show that the sd1 doesnt' have an anti-alias filter, which in this case makes edges look darker. They also show that the D3x resolves *much* more fine detail-which everyone already knows, if they understand digital imaging...</p>

<p>You're moving too slow...</p>

<p>Unless your camera is 100's of miles wide, you don't need to worry about induced current from solar storms...</p>

<p>So, Andrew, are you saying that the i1 Pro *does* have a problem with "drift", or that the 'external' issues I detailed are the greater problem?</p>

<p>I've owned an i1pro for about 10 years, and this is the first time I've heard of a 'drift problem'.<br>

I found a few threads at AVS Forums talking about this, and the gist is that spectrophotometers are not as accurate at very low luminance levels as they are at brighter levels.<br>

Users need to calibrate the i1 using the supplied calibration cover, and should calibrate screens in dark rooms. If your software has the ability to do longer integration times, you can choose that for more accuracy at low light levels.<br>

Spectros are also affected by heat, so you want to allow the spectro's temperature to stabilize by placing it on the screen for a long-enough time, *then* calibrating the spectro with the calibration cover, then running the screen calibration routine.<br>

Those calibrating plasma displays need to remember that the *display* may reduce the intensity of a color patch over time to protect the display...</p>

<p>The older Canon G9 produces excellent full-bleed 13" x 19" prints. I base excellence on what my 1Ds w/24-70 can do...</p>

<p>Epson banding: I wonder if your months-long disuse is allowing the pigments to settle out of suspension.. You might try taking the carts out and thoroughly shaking them, just like an initial install.<br>

I see no banding in my R1800 prints (that I might do 2-3 times a year).</p>

<p>I have my LCD calibrated to 140 cd/m2 (which is still too bright for accurate print comparison) and your pic looks too dark. 120 cd/m2 is recommended, I'd guess your at 160 or higher on brightness. The expensive monitors from NEC, et al, can go low, which is needed for editing.</p>

<p>Tyler,<br>

Unlike *everybody* else out there, I'm going to recommend the 1Ds Mk3. I shoot landscapes and nature with my 1Ds "mk1", and the sheer heft of the beast damps mirror slap, wind gusts, and resonances between the body and lenses you use.<br>

Also, the 1Ds has a built-in shutter curtain, so you don't have to worry about light from the eyepiece ruining a shot.<br>

And for when you decide to shoot moving subjects, or use teleconverters, you'll still get excellent AF.<br>

You can afford the best, and you probably *will* benefit from the extras that you get.</p>

<p>*My* copy of CS4 ACR has lens correction... ?!</p>

<p>I print almost exclusively 13" x 19" full-bleed (right to the edge of the paper) with my 1Ds. If you did your job, you will be able to view these prints right up close, with excellent results.<br>

You *will* need to shoot RAW, and you will need to know how to sharpen in post-processing to get the very best results.<br>

The 1Ds has fantastic color and clarity, if you put good lenses on it. Certainly a match to the D700 if you expose 2/3 stop brighter, and use ISO 100. (Canon apparently set this model up to underexpose. I find that I can easily go +2/3 EV using center-weighted metering, and clouds will not be clipped when metering landscapes).</p>

 

<p>Vince, you will also need the NEC-supplied colorimeter (for more than $89), or a spectrophotometer (for alot more that $89). You need a special colorimeter due to the wide-gamut of the monitor. You cannot use just any cheap colorimeter!<br>

I just calibrated my new 2490 with SVii, and my i1 Pro. What a beautiful monitor.</p>