# New Full Frame Camera in Testing? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 27, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16580"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16580">Tweet</a></div>
<p>A <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_1Dx_mk2.html" target="_blank">mention on Northlight</a> about someone from Canon apparently visited a few studios in the New York City area recently with a “test” camera in an EOS-1D X body. Images had to be processed and viewed on a particular laptop and none of the images could be copied or kept.</p>
<p>The image files were very similar in size to the EOS 5D Mark III’s 22mp files, but exhibited “much” better colour accuracy and detail. This camera is supposedly for later this year or early next year.</p>
<p>Could this be a replacement to the EOS-1D X, or an introduction of a new camera such as the rumor favourite EOS 3D?</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_1Dx_mk2.html" target="_blank">NL</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Skulker (May 27, 2014)

It will be interesting to see how "much better" you can get with the colours?


----------



## captainkanji (May 27, 2014)

Whatever it is, I'm sure it will be out of my price range  Maybe Sigma has given Canon a swift kick to start innovating. Can't wait to see it though.


----------



## Viggo (May 27, 2014)

Skulker said:


> It will be interesting to see how "much better" you can get with the colours?



I use a color checker passport and it does amazing things. To able to drop that tweak will reduce noise quite a bit, I'm all for it. There's a good difference between the 5d3 and 1dx also, so if they really keep pushing for accurate color I'm very happy with that.


----------



## wsmith96 (May 27, 2014)

Looking forward to see what this is all about...


----------



## unfocused (May 27, 2014)

Test camera? Or test sensor? Or test processor? 

Whatever they might be testing, it has to be put into a body to test it. Makes sense to use the 1D body for testing, but who knows how or when or even if, it might ultimately be implemented.


----------



## pedro (May 27, 2014)

Viggo said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > It will be interesting to see how "much better" you can get with the colours?
> ...



Could this refer to new and highly advanced sensor tech?


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 27, 2014)

The color accuracy of the 1Dx actually isn't all that great. It's nothing compared to the 1Ds Mark III.


----------



## KAS (May 27, 2014)

bdunbar79 said:


> The color accuracy of the 1Dx actually isn't all that great. It's nothing compared to the 1Ds Mark III.



This.

I have a 5D3 and two 1Ds3 cameras. There is so much to still love about the 1Ds3 over the 5d3. Colour accuracy and image cleanliness definitely among them.


----------



## MARKOE PHOTOE (May 27, 2014)

Ouch! I just bought a 1DX last week! I love it like all the others but do see room for improvement. It is much better than I thought it might be so I'm going to sell my trusty 1D4 and 6D. (Keeping the 5D3 until a replacement is announced that).


----------



## privatebydesign (May 27, 2014)

WOOHOOO!

That, as I have bored many of you with, would be my dream camera, 24-28MP with a better sensor in a 1 series body. 

Fingers crossed on this rumour, it would also be another interesting differentiator between the high MP Nikon bodies. 

As for colour, in a studio environment particularly, there is no excuse for inaccurate colours already, though it is surprising the number of people, high end pros included, that just don't understand camera profiles, profiling, and a decent colour managed workflow, what are their assistants doing?

P.S. There have been so many 1DX deals around recently there might be a little more to this rumour than most, I'd love to know the fps, if it is aimed as a 1DX MkII it can't be slower than currently. If the 1DX truthfully was an amalgamation of the 1D and 1DS lines then it is high time for a camera with better "studio" specs than the 1Ds MkIII, if that got a high frame rate too it would be THE generalists tool. No more lenses for me this year :'(


----------



## Dylan777 (May 28, 2014)

This might be related: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-waiting-for-canons-move-and-evaluating-the-a7-cameras-let-them-know-what-you-think-should-be-improved/


----------



## Lightmaster (May 28, 2014)

same image size, much better color, more details... well could be foveon like sensor.
could also be a better bayer sensor. 

big question is....are they talking about JPG or RAW....


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 28, 2014)

Cool a better camera than the 1dx. Get ready for a 9000.00 camera body.


----------



## tiger82 (May 28, 2014)

Still cheaper than a Leica


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 28, 2014)

Maybe based on the rumored pseudo-Foveon-like new sensors??
Although if it has the same file size as a 5D3 that would make it a pretty low effective detail MP count, kinda like 10MP Foveon??


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 28, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> same image size, much better color, more details... well could be foveon like sensor.
> could also be a better bayer sensor.
> 
> big question is....are they talking about JPG or RAW....



good point! If they are talking JPGs it could mean it's 60MP Foveon, 20MP++ equivalent which wouldn't be bad. Although it sounded like they were talking RAW since they mentioned special laptop to process the files which implies more like 24MP Foveon and 8MP++ equivalent, but this many years later you'd think they could aim to be pushing 3x the sensor data not the same amount which hints back towards the first 60MP/20MP++.


----------



## ScottyP (May 28, 2014)

I forget. What is the supposed "3D" supposed to be?


----------



## wsmith96 (May 28, 2014)

lol - watch it be the 7D Mk II


----------



## agierke (May 28, 2014)

dilbert said:


> ....
> 
> however I'm not sure about this rumor.
> 
> ...



my thoughts exactly. why would canon do this?

its one thing for canon to get high speed cameras in the hands of professionals in the field for testing (ie world cup, olympics etc) but why do so for a studio setting? is it beyond canons capability to set up a studio at their R&D facility for testing....i highly doubt it.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 28, 2014)

agierke said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



They have always done that, particularly with the high end bodies and lenses, it is part and parcel of the normal testing process and it throws up inconsistencies and compatibility issues the labs and Japanese factory field testers don't come across. It also gets Canon high end user feedback, however perverse and badly informed it might be, and it creates a little clique for the studios. Being an Alpha tester for Canon is a feather in any studios cap.


----------



## agierke (May 28, 2014)

hmm, i guess that kind of makes sense.


----------



## mitchel (May 28, 2014)

fwiw, I agree with Dilbert. Seems borderline inconceivable that someone reviewing a laptop image could reliably conclude that color rendition was "much better." Sounds "hoaxy" to me... Regardless, I'd be thrilled to see a sub 30 mp canon camera with much better color rendition, dynamic range and/or noise performance.


----------



## Orangutan (May 28, 2014)

mitchel said:


> Seems borderline inconceivable that someone reviewing a laptop image could reliably conclude that color rendition was "much better." Sounds "hoaxy" to me... Regardless, I'd be thrilled to see a sub 30 mp canon camera with much better color rendition, dynamic range and/or noise performance.



There is no way to tell if the test photographers concluded that the camera had these superior image qualities, or if the Canon entourage *told* them that was the compelling feature of this camera. It sounds neither hoaxish nor entirely credible to me: it sounds like a CR1.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 28, 2014)

A lot of even high end pros don't have the faintest idea about colour. I have seen pros, real household names, wax lyrical about this lighting setup or that lighting setup because of a colour cast, yet not having a clue about camera profiling. It is kind of embarrassing the misinformed uneducated rubbish they come out with sometimes, particularly about colour, but hey, they are much better image makers and promoters than me! 

Many don't do anything, they leave all that to "the retouchers", some use grey cards but believe WB is all that is needed for good consistent work while some, depressingly few, use colour cards and make profiles. It is funny, they know what light they like, they can tell you what time of day an image was made in their daylight studio from the colour on their calibrated monitor, but they couldn't tell you how to create exactly the same look with studio lights, or visa versa.

As far as lighting goes, junior movie light crew know far more about light than most high end pro photographers.


----------



## bardamu (May 28, 2014)

"BRING IT"


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 28, 2014)

ScottyP said:


> I forget. What is the supposed "3D" supposed to be?



The EOS 3D is long-fabled version of the film EOS 3, but it's not longer fabled as it already arrived as the EOS 5D3 a few years ago. Although I guess some just want to keep the mythical nature of it alive hah and others simply don't seem to understand so they still keep on talking about a mythical 3D one day (again, it's lready out and it's the 5D3; I'm particularly not sure why some keep trying to refer to the mythical upcoming ultra high MP camera as the EOS 3D, since what the heck does that have to do with the old EOS 3, it's not like the EOS 3 was medium format or anything).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 28, 2014)

dilbert said:


> ....
> 
> however I'm not sure about this rumor.
> 
> ...



Its more the fine color transitions and discrimination they are referring to and fine color detail, that is different than accuracy (which depends a lot on the color profile used to develop and matching white balance and so on and so forth).

And maybe they were told to leak talk about amazing colors regardless of what they could see on the laptop.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> agierke said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


+1


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> A lot of even high end pros don't have the faintest idea about colour. I have seen pros, real household names, wax lyrical about this lighting setup or that lighting setup because of a colour cast, yet not having a clue about camera profiling. It is kind of embarrassing the misinformed uneducated rubbish they come out with sometimes, particularly about colour, but hey, they are much better image makers and promoters than me!
> 
> Many don't do anything, they leave all that to "the retouchers", some use grey cards but believe WB is all that is needed for good consistent work while some, depressingly few, use colour cards and make profiles. It is funny, they know what light they like, they can tell you what time of day an image was made in their daylight studio from the colour on their calibrated monitor, but they couldn't tell you how to create exactly the same look with studio lights, or visa versa.
> 
> As far as lighting goes, junior movie light crew know far more about light than most high end pro photographers.



that can be true


----------



## WoodyWindy (May 28, 2014)

ScottyP said:


> I forget. What is the supposed "3D" supposed to be?



The EOS 3D is a fantasy camera that is supposed to be the ultimate combination of every bit of camera technology you could ever ask for in a relatively compact and affordable package.

Inspired by the film era EOS 3, which took every bit of tech Canon had at the time (zillion point AF, eye control, weather sealing, robust, high speed shutter, 100% viewfinder, EOS 1 series UI, etc...) and dumped it into a body that was just a little more expensive than the Elan (xx) series of cameras. Then Canon introduced the EOS 1v at over twice the price that offered one incremental benefit (bullet proof construction), but took away eye control and a little speed unless you bought the power booster grip. Note that every EOS 1D series camera since is based on the EOS 1v interface and PB grip-included cosmetics. 

I would be willing to bet that the 5D III and/or its linear successor is about as close as we are going to get from Canon these days.


----------



## expatinasia (May 28, 2014)

dilbert said:


> the colour accuracy of a file when viewed on a laptop screen is highly dependent on the ability of the screen to represent colour itself and without being able to use the images on a calibrated screen, the colours seen on some random laptop mean nothing.
> 
> I'd be almost prepared to call this rumor a hoax.



Would be interesting to know what laptop was used, which model and make of screen it had and what was used to calibrate it etc.

There are a few ways they can improve the 1D X but I do not think we will see a new one for a quite a while yet.

Maybe it is the 7D II and the body is just to throw everyone, I mean they could hide a 7D Mark II in a 1D X but you could never hide a 1D X in a 7D!


----------



## Zv (May 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> A lot of even high end pros don't have the faintest idea about colour. I have seen pros, real household names, wax lyrical about this lighting setup or that lighting setup because of a colour cast, yet not having a clue about camera profiling. It is kind of embarrassing the misinformed uneducated rubbish they come out with sometimes, particularly about colour, but hey, they are much better image makers and promoters than me!
> 
> Many don't do anything, they leave all that to "the retouchers", some use grey cards but believe WB is all that is needed for good consistent work while some, depressingly few, use colour cards and make profiles. It is funny, they know what light they like, they can tell you what time of day an image was made in their daylight studio from the colour on their calibrated monitor, but they couldn't tell you how to create exactly the same look with studio lights, or visa versa.
> 
> As far as lighting goes, junior movie light crew know far more about light than most high end pro photographers.



Sorry, I'm not 100% sure about what color profiling is, I'm not a pro or anything even close but it sounds like something I should know about. 

Are you refering to the Camera Calibration tab on LR or ACR? How does that work? Do you create a custom profile for each type of lighting and save it as a preset?


----------



## WoodyWindy (May 28, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > I forget. What is the supposed "3D" supposed to be?
> ...



Looks like we were composing almost identical responses at the same time!  I think the "missing" element, aside from the name, was that the original 3 actually was the best of everything Canon had, until the 1v and its indestructible body came out. Maybe they pray for the return of eye control? Or who knows what. In any case, I agree that the 5D III fills that niche pretty well.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 28, 2014)

WoodyWindy said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > I forget. What is the supposed "3D" supposed to be?
> ...



The 3 didn't have a 100% viewfinder, one of the main reasons I got two 1VHS's which did, oh and the ten frames a second  Running through a roll of film in 3.5 seconds is a thing of beauty!


----------



## privatebydesign (May 28, 2014)

Zv said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of even high end pros don't have the faintest idea about colour. I have seen pros, real household names, wax lyrical about this lighting setup or that lighting setup because of a colour cast, yet not having a clue about camera profiling. It is kind of embarrassing the misinformed uneducated rubbish they come out with sometimes, particularly about colour, but hey, they are much better image makers and promoters than me!
> ...



Yes, the camera calibration tab in LR and ACR, you can make custom profiles very easily and quickly if you do a shot on set with a regular 24 patch colour card. The most popular and convenient one around is the X-Rite Color Checker Passport. I found the free Adobe app, DNG Profile Editor, to be a better piece of software than the inclusive X-Rite app.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/colorchecker-psssport.shtml

DSLR Basics Tutorial | Xrite Color Checker Passport | Camera Custom White Balance


----------



## WoodyWindy (May 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> WoodyWindy said:
> 
> 
> > ScottyP said:
> ...



OK, I stand corrected on the viewfinder, but being 97% when the EOS 1n (tops at the time of intro) was only listed as "near 100%", and the still respectable EOS 50/Elan IIe was only at 90/92%, the difference was a mere quibble until the EOS 1v family.


----------



## dslrdummy (May 28, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > the colour accuracy of a file when viewed on a laptop screen is highly dependent on the ability of the screen to represent colour itself and without being able to use the images on a calibrated screen, the colours seen on some random laptop mean nothing.
> ...


Maybe the 7Dii has a built-in grip and has dropped the flash, which means it could superficially at least resemble a new (although likely smaller) 1D.


----------



## Zv (May 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Cheers! I'll check it out! 

Also, thanks for the link to luminous landscape, that just saved me a whole lot of time mucking about with google search!


----------



## HBaekked (May 28, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> Maybe it is the 7D II and the body is just to throw everyone, I mean they could hide a 7D Mark II in a 1D X but you could never hide a 1D X in a 7D!



You don't think a studio photographer would notice the crop factor?


----------



## Sabaki (May 28, 2014)

dslrdummy said:


> Maybe the 7Dii has a built-in grip and has dropped the flash...



THIS! I'd love this for the 7Dii!


----------



## traveller (May 28, 2014)

dilbert said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



If I wanted to read a website that's little more than a mouthpiece for a camera manufacturer, I'd read Sony Alpha Rumors! ;-)


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 28, 2014)

Canon often do this kind of thing so that their products are fully tested by trusted professionals and they get the feed back their development engineers need. If they don't do this 1D4 fiascos are likely to occurr. While this kind of leak plays to our emotions, it is necessary for the developement of better camera models. But it is also kind of cool, becuase we get to hear very loose by telling information about prototypes which are currently in devleopment. We know (via other rumours) that Canon have a sensor patent / design which uses a different arrangement of the traditional bayer RGB array. It's likely that this new sensor is a test bed for that particular patent / technology and it appears to be an improvement over the current tech. 
Bare in mind that the 5DIII resolves nearly as much detail as the D800. It's only the top end optical resolution of a few of the worlds sharpest lenses which can allow the D800 to out resolve the 5DIII and even then, there isn't much between them. Amusingly, Canon have more lenses in that bracket, than Nikon currently do...Canon's new 24-70IIL is the sharpest zoom lens so far from any brand. When Canon finally releases a camera body with this kind of MP count, there will be a lot of lenses to match the sensor's capabilies, where as Nikon have very few lenses which can match their current sensor tech. Most of their lenses do not optically resolve much over 22mp. 
I think this new camera's sensor point to a more efficient use of the RGB array and probably the removal of the AA filter to create sharper and clearer details with the same resolution of 22mp. If this is the case, the new camera could easily match the D800's sharpness and detail but at a more effficient 22mp. the improvement in colour rendition sound good and i only hope that Canon have employed a simular supporting sensor design to achieve the same (if not better) shadow noise pushability in their raw files. This isn't an expanded DR as some have claimed, it's purely a better control of iso noise in the shadow areas of a raw file. Where as Canon files tend to break up and display banding with the same level of pushing in the shadows. 
one could argue that the scene was incorrectly exposed in the first place...but the fact remains, Nikon / Sony currently have a 1.5 stop advantage in this single feature on their sensors. All the other features are a lot closer than the marketing / spin doctors would let you belive.


----------



## Quackator (May 28, 2014)

About the special laptop: That for sure ran a prerelease version
of DPP with the new camera included. And how to judge color accuracy?
Simple: Process pictures from a current camera as well and compare.


----------



## expatinasia (May 28, 2014)

HBaekked said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe it is the 7D II and the body is just to throw everyone, I mean they could hide a 7D Mark II in a 1D X but you could never hide a 1D X in a 7D!
> ...



Of course, you are assuming the new 7D Mark II is crop and not full frame. 

Still this rumour is only CR1, so maybe they were testing a new Sony Sensor!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2014)

There's an intellectual property term called 'teaching away', meaning it's ok to make public information that's basically the opposite of what you are really doing. So, from a purposeful leak about 'better color' we can infer this new camera has a monochrome sensor.


----------



## Rick (May 28, 2014)

*Do what?*



GMCPhotographics said:


> Bare in mind that the 5DIII resolves *nearly* as much detail as the D800. It's only the top end optical resolution of a few of the worlds sharpest lenses which can allow the D800 to out resolve the 5DIII and even then, there isn't much between them.



1.) I have both cameras, and the D800E *clearly* produces more of the fine detail that renders an image more realistic (if all of the resolution-saving techniques are used and the image isn't bludgeoned to death in PPing).
2.) This resolution differential can *clearly* be seen when using any lens in my bag and most Canon, Zeiss, Sigma et al lenses in current production. 
3.) This resolution differential can *clearly* be seen in downsized images (as small 1800x1200 px for instance).
4.) Many folks "*clearly*" do not care about or even see the fine details in the natural world.

Now, whether or not "clearly" equals "nearly" is a probably matter of observational skills.


----------



## Lightmaster (May 28, 2014)

Rick said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Bare in mind that the 5DIII resolves *nearly* as much detail as the D800. It's only the top end optical resolution of a few of the worlds sharpest lenses which can allow the D800 to out resolve the 5DIII and even then, there isn't much between them.
> ...



examples speak louder then words.

still sensor + lens is more important then just the sensors. 
DXO wrote a nice article about that.

36mp can render more details than 22mp.. well what a suprise. 

people claim they can *clearly* hear the difference between 196 or 256kbit MP3 and 320kbit MP3.. only when you test them (under studio conditions) they can not. 
the german CT magazin had done such a test under studio conditons with "gold ears" (audio engineers and selfclaimed audiophiles) and nobody was able to get more right then you would with pure guessing. well one guy who has a hearing disability got 64% right.
that´s because he reacted to the MP3 compression different (because MP3´s auditory masking is made for the average human).

so what i want to say... some stuff is clearly just in peoples imagination.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 28, 2014)

> 3.) This resolution differential can clearly be seen in downsized images (as small 1800x1200 px for instance).



I'd like to see examples of that, I once had a very acrimonious thread conversation with a guy who swore he could tell medium format film images from 135 format digital images at 800px, turned out he couldn't. But I'd still like to see some examples of the D800 at 1800 showing "clearly" better resolution.


----------



## AG (May 28, 2014)

I would like to see a 1DX mk2 or 5Dmk4 both have the ability to shoot 4K video as well. 

The issue i can see though wont be heat, but instead justifying the 1DC and its over inflated price tag.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2014)

*Re: Do what?*



Rick said:


> 3.) This resolution differential can *clearly* be seen in downsized images (as small 1800x1200 px for instance).
> 4.) Many folks "*clearly*" do not care about or even see the fine details in the natural world.



Truly, you have a dizzying intellect. But I am not a great fool, so I can *clearly* not choose the wine image in front of you. 

Much of the fine detail in the natural world consists of repetitive patterns – bird feathers, animal fur, fern fronds, etc. I wonder if you are perceiving moiré as enhanced detail. 

It's easy to make unsubstantiated claims on the Internet. Show us some 1800x1200 pictures...


----------



## rs (May 28, 2014)

*Re: Do what?*



Rick said:


> 3.) This resolution differential can *clearly* be seen in downsized images (as small 1800x1200 px for instance).



How wrong my assumptions are. I was under the impression that if you have two images, both taken with lenses and sensors capable of exceeding 2.1 MP by a big margin, and then output them at a resolution of just 2.1 MP, the resolution would be the same.

Still, what does logic mean when you can throw in a good dose of moiré which can create false information, corrupting the image at any size?


----------



## Ivar (May 28, 2014)

I don't have any more the 5D2 (with similar resolution as the 5D3) but to me the image quality with crappy Nikon zoom lens in front of the D800 looks rather great at 100% - http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=4299.msg146875#msg146875

Here's another one, hand held (well a wall is used for partial support). So much about the useless camera which can be used only on a tripod deciding by this forum:






And with a 3D feeling:


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 28, 2014)

*Re: Do what?*



Rick said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Bare in mind that the 5DIII resolves *nearly* as much detail as the D800. It's only the top end optical resolution of a few of the worlds sharpest lenses which can allow the D800 to out resolve the 5DIII and even then, there isn't much between them.
> ...



Whhhhaaaattt???? You mean that DXO labs have lied to me...again????? Nooooooooooo

Mean while....in a galaxy far far away......


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2014)

*Re: Do what?*



Brett Hull said:


> a lens that gives 15 P-MP on a 24 MP sensor may very well need a 200MP sensor to be fully resolved, for all intents and purposes, and it certainly doesn't "waste" 9 million sensor pixels.



No, those 9 MP don't 'go away'. They still take up space on your digital storage media, time to process, etc., even if they don't add anything to the information content of the image. It's called 'empty resolution' for a reason.


----------



## pedro (May 28, 2014)

Brett Hull said:


> The image files were very similar in size to the EOS 5D Mark III’s 22mp files, but exhibited “much” better colour accuracy and detail. *This camera is supposedly for later this year or early next year.
> *
> 
> This means better color filter and not so thin CFA as they have now , where reds going towards orange as one example and regarding the resolution a lighter AA-filter on none as Nikon.
> ...



If it is for next year, I dare to guess that it might be the 5DIV or they give it another year of product cycle and introduce an 1Ds ish body...who knows...As I am looking forward to a 5DV there remains quite some time for me ;-) The 5D3 still rocks!


----------



## rrcphoto (May 28, 2014)

mitchel said:


> fwiw, I agree with Dilbert. Seems borderline inconceivable that someone reviewing a laptop image could reliably conclude that color rendition was "much better." Sounds "hoaxy" to me... Regardless, I'd be thrilled to see a sub 30 mp canon camera with much better color rendition, dynamic range and/or noise performance.



you've never seen a dreamcolor based laptop? or heard of hooking and external monitor to one?


----------



## privatebydesign (May 28, 2014)

Ivar said:


> I don't have any more the 5D2 (with similar resolution as the 5D3) but to me the image quality with crappy Nikon zoom lens in front of the D800 looks rather great at 100% - http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=4299.msg146875#msg146875
> 
> Here's another one, hand held (well a wall is used for partial support). So much about the useless camera which can be used only on a tripod deciding by this forum:
> 
> ...



Ivar,

Whilst there is no doubt the 36mp D800E can resolve more detail in certain situations with certain lenses than a 24mp 5D MkIII, your examples are not good and don't demonstrate that, you are confusing what you can see, which is nice, with what the numbers say you should see, which is a hell of a lot more than you can. Anything over base iso, and 3200 isn't base, impacts resolution, that isn't a Canon fanboy comment, it is a fact. As for a "3D look" that is farcical, the image is the image, if you shot the same image at the same time with any camera from the same place with the same fov, dof, etc then it would look the same, maybe a touch of the clarity slider for lenses that lack multicoatings and contrast, but that is all.

There are differences between the two manufacturers systems, but your examples don't demonstrate those differences.


----------



## Zv (May 28, 2014)

*Re: Do what?*



Brett Hull said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Brett Hull said:
> ...



??? Huh?? You've lost me there. Are you just throwing random photographic words together?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2014)

*Re: Do what?*



Zv said:


> Brett Hull said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I think it lost something in the translation from the Swedish. Or perhaps the statements only apply to pictures of barbecues and awnings that are pushed 4 stops in post.


----------



## kalieaire (May 28, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> same image size, much better color, more details... well could be foveon like sensor.
> could also be a better bayer sensor.
> 
> big question is....are they talking about JPG or RAW....



This is going to have to be a Foveon type sensor. The only question is was the "similar in size to the EOS 5D Mark III" files are going to be 1/3 the resolution or full resolution.

The current state of DSLRs is the Bayer Sensor which by design creates less detail, the only way to bypass this is either with some new amazing image processing algorithm or via a Foveon style sensor.

If Sigma's lineup is any indication, a 22MP image whose image dimensions are actually 22MP (vs Foveon's inflated x3 sensor 15 MP file creating a 5 MP image) could potentially rival a 40 Megapixel DSLR, and possibly MF, offerings.


----------



## danski0224 (May 28, 2014)

I'm still trying to use the remaining 90% to 95% of the capabilities of what I have now... 

A new 1D series would be out of my reach- can't see it being less than a 1DX. 

I would be interested in something with Foveon technology though. That would be cool. I was very tempted by the DP3 Merrill.


----------



## Etienne (May 28, 2014)

I welcome any and all new developments and improvements in cameras (even non-Canon brands ). Most of all, I welcome the ones I can afford. Unfortunately, my GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) has limited my ability to make future purchases unless I sell some of my current under-utilized stuff 

And I'd really like a lightweight FF that can do top notch video (better than my 5DIII), mirrorless or otherwise.


----------



## wsmith96 (May 28, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> mitchel said:
> 
> 
> > fwiw, I agree with Dilbert. Seems borderline inconceivable that someone reviewing a laptop image could reliably conclude that color rendition was "much better." Sounds "hoaxy" to me... Regardless, I'd be thrilled to see a sub 30 mp canon camera with much better color rendition, dynamic range and/or noise performance.
> ...



Yep - the dreamcolor screens are awesome and priced accordingly.


----------



## Peer (May 28, 2014)

Maybe it's a 10-bit 1DC mark II..? 

-- peer


----------



## Skulker (May 28, 2014)

Viggo said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > It will be interesting to see how "much better" you can get with the colours?
> ...



I use color checker with the 5d3 and the 1Dx. Couldn't agree more that the results are very satisfactory. I don't see how it will reduce noise.

But remain very interested to see what they are achieving.


----------



## pedro (May 28, 2014)

Hope there won't be too much of a dissapointment to anyone in case that things don't turn out as expected...


----------



## Don Haines (May 28, 2014)

I find it inconceivable that there would not be a new FF camera in testing....


----------



## pedro (May 28, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I find it inconceivable that there would not be a new FF camera in testing....



Very likely, that there is a new FF camera in testing, we expect a 5DIV for March or summer if they keep their 3 to 3.5 years product cycle. Just thought out loud in case it doesn't contain foevon like technique, although there were recent rumors about a foevon like sensor or am I wrong?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I find it inconceivable that there would not be a new FF camera in testing....



You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. 

;D


----------



## Orangutan (May 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I find it inconceivable that there would not be a new FF camera in testing....
> ...



It would be a miracle.


----------



## Don Haines (May 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I find it inconceivable that there would not be a new FF camera in testing....
> ...


I was wondering if anyone would catch on....
An inconceivable Montage


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> There's an intellectual property term called 'teaching away', meaning it's ok to make public information that's basically the opposite of what you are really doing. So, from a purposeful leak about 'better color' we can infer this new camera has a monochrome sensor.



and from a file size similar to that of the 5D3 that it is either a 1MP B&W sensor or a 100MP B&W sensor.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 29, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Canon often do this kind of thing so that their products are fully tested by trusted professionals and they get the feed back their development engineers need. If they don't do this 1D4 fiascos are likely to occurr. While this kind of leak plays to our emotions, it is necessary for the developement of better camera models. But it is also kind of cool, becuase we get to hear very loose by telling information about prototypes which are currently in devleopment. We know (via other rumours) that Canon have a sensor patent / design which uses a different arrangement of the traditional bayer RGB array. It's likely that this new sensor is a test bed for that particular patent / technology and it appears to be an improvement over the current tech.
> Bare in mind that the 5DIII resolves nearly as much detail as the D800. It's only the top end optical resolution of a few of the worlds sharpest lenses which can allow the D800 to out resolve the 5DIII and even then, there isn't much between them. Amusingly, Canon have more lenses in that bracket, than Nikon currently do...Canon's new 24-70IIL is the sharpest zoom lens so far from any brand. When Canon finally releases a camera body with this kind of MP count, there will be a lot of lenses to match the sensor's capabilies, where as Nikon have very few lenses which can match their current sensor tech. Most of their lenses do not optically resolve much over 22mp.
> I think this new camera's sensor point to a more efficient use of the RGB array and probably the removal of the AA filter to create sharper and clearer details with the same resolution of 22mp. If this is the case, the new camera could easily match the D800's sharpness and detail but at a more effficient 22mp. the improvement in colour rendition sound good and i only hope that Canon have employed a simular supporting sensor design to achieve the same (if not better) shadow noise pushability in their raw files. This isn't an expanded DR as some have claimed, it's purely a better control of iso noise in the shadow areas of a raw file. Where as Canon files tend to break up and display banding with the same level of pushing in the shadows.
> one could argue that the scene was incorrectly exposed in the first place...but the fact remains, Nikon / Sony currently have a 1.5 stop advantage in this single feature on their sensors. All the other features are a lot closer than the marketing / spin doctors would let you belive.



You are going into a bit of hyperbole there about how tricky it is to see an extra detail out of the D800 (and don't forget that a 70D has more detail in the center part of what would be a FF than the D800).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 29, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



DxO also compares system using things like 50mm lenses set to f/1.4 LOL (and things like comparing various 50mm lenses on the same system with one set to 1.2 and another to 1.4 and another to 2.8 LOL)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 29, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> people claim they can *clearly* hear the difference between 196 or 256kbit MP3 and 320kbit MP3.. only when you test them (under studio conditions) they can not.



196 to 256 is a small step, but 196 to 320 can be heard and 128 to CD sure the heck can be easily distinguished


----------



## jrista (May 29, 2014)

bdunbar79 said:


> The color accuracy of the 1Dx actually isn't all that great. It's nothing compared to the 1Ds Mark III.



Yeah, that would be expected, given the weaker CFA relative to the 1Ds III. I wonder what Canon is doing to remedy that issue...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 29, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I find it inconceivable that there would not be a new FF camera in testing....



hopefully you do know what the word inconceivable means even if a certain someone in a certain movie did not
otherwise canon has lost the plot


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I find it inconceivable that there would not be a new FF camera in testing....
> ...



darn and i see everyone else beat me to it already


----------



## Don Haines (May 29, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I find it inconceivable that there would not be a new FF camera in testing....
> ...


not conceivable, unimaginable, incapable of being conceived, imagined, or considered....

If it is inconceivable that there would not be a new FF camera in testing, then I could not imagine such a scenario, and if I could not imagine such a scenario, I obviously would not comment on it 

BTW, Neuro got it right


----------



## paulrossjones (May 30, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Canon often do this kind of thing so that their products are fully tested by trusted professionals and they get the feed back their development engineers need. If they don't do this 1D4 fiascos are likely to occurr. While this kind of leak plays to our emotions, it is necessary for the developement of better camera models. But it is also kind of cool, becuase we get to hear very loose by telling information about prototypes which are currently in devleopment. We know (via other rumours) that Canon have a sensor patent / design which uses a different arrangement of the traditional bayer RGB array. It's likely that this new sensor is a test bed for that particular patent / technology and it appears to be an improvement over the current tech.
> Bare in mind that the 5DIII resolves nearly as much detail as the D800. It's only the top end optical resolution of a few of the worlds sharpest lenses which can allow the D800 to out resolve the 5DIII and even then, there isn't much between them. Amusingly, Canon have more lenses in that bracket, than Nikon currently do...Canon's new 24-70IIL is the sharpest zoom lens so far from any brand. When Canon finally releases a camera body with this kind of MP count, there will be a lot of lenses to match the sensor's capabilies, where as Nikon have very few lenses which can match their current sensor tech. Most of their lenses do not optically resolve much over 22mp.
> I think this new camera's sensor point to a more efficient use of the RGB array and probably the removal of the AA filter to create sharper and clearer details with the same resolution of 22mp. If this is the case, the new camera could easily match the D800's sharpness and detail but at a more effficient 22mp. the improvement in colour rendition sound good and i only hope that Canon have employed a simular supporting sensor design to achieve the same (if not better) shadow noise pushability in their raw files. This isn't an expanded DR as some have claimed, it's purely a better control of iso noise in the shadow areas of a raw file. Where as Canon files tend to break up and display banding with the same level of pushing in the shadows.
> one could argue that the scene was incorrectly exposed in the first place...but the fact remains, Nikon / Sony currently have a 1.5 stop advantage in this single feature on their sensors. All the other features are a lot closer than the marketing / spin doctors would let you belive.




hi, i have owned a multiple every professional canon camera since the 1ds mk1, and at the moment i own 5dmk3's. 
i brought a sony a7r to test a few weeks ago and was absolutely blown away by the detail and the latitude of the sony file. it clearly blows away the canon in detail with exactly the same lenses (i have been using the metabone adaptor I've shot exactly the same thing with two cameras and there just is no comparison. 

i have no idea how you can say there are similar! have you got both cameras?

I was so impressed with the file from the sony- but very disappointed with the evf and usability of the sony. so i brought a d800 and lenses. the d800 appears virtually identical file wise to the sony, and i am very happy with it. 

i am reluctantly holding on to my canon gear waiting for photokina. but canon has to improve their files with both megapixels and file depth, or i will be changing completely to nikon for the first time in 15years. the 5dmk3 files have disappointed me over and over again.
almost everyone i know who shoots in my field (advertising photography) have seriously considered or already moved to nikon. 

paul


----------



## privatebydesign (May 30, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> If they don't do this 1D4 fiascos are likely to occurr.



I presume you actually meant the 1D MkIII AF issue.


----------



## Larry (May 30, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...




I find it inconceivable that any thing(noun) or verb(action) could be correctly described as inconceivable, …it having been conceived already in order to be used as the subject of the description. ;D

Anything truly inconceivable will never be a subject of discussion! 

Edit-(Maybe the world should be retired as unusable and something like "…difficult to believe." substituted? ) ???


----------



## Don Haines (May 30, 2014)

Larry said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...


+√∞


----------



## Larry (May 30, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> +√∞



The square root of infinity has to be infinity, …(anything less)^2 must, by definition, fall short.


----------



## StudentOfLight (May 31, 2014)

The word inconceivable is an example of hyperbole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole


----------



## dolina (May 31, 2014)

I hope it is an improvement over the 5D3.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 2, 2014)

I'm doubtless opening myself up to all sorts of disapproval here, but can someone explain/share links on the subject of colour accuracy? What does it mean - accurate in what sense? What are we calibrating the camera against?

I have never done studio work, so it's a bit beyond my world, but when I take photographs, I adjust the colour balance afterwards based on a couple of things - either I pick a spot that I know was close to neutral grey (if there is one), and/or adjust until the picture resembles what I remember seeing/believe is best. I'd batch process for groups of shots taken together.

I suppose it would be nice, to speed things up if I were processing lots of similar shots, to use an automated method, but am I missing something? My eyes each see the colour balance of the world slightly differently (when I close one then the other it can be quite obvious) - I imagine we all see colours slightly differently. And then there's how you're viewing the photos, and the ultimate intent of the image (the feel, for want of a better word).

I can understand accuracy in the sense of a device measuring the wavelengths of the light from each element in the scene, and recording them. And if it records different colours as the same (metamerism?) then this is bad. But the middle bit - translating measured light into an image we see and recognise and relate to... where does 'accuracy' fit in? If I see a picture of a flower, how do I know precisely what colour it was, if I wasn't there? Or what tint the lighting added, etc.

Sorry, sometimes fundamental concepts seem strange to me.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 2, 2014)

When "they" are talking about colour accuracy like that they are not talking about white balance, well they shouldn't be, they are talking about the relationship of colours to each other. That is where the Camera Calibration profiles in LR, PS and DPP come in, is the Landscape or the Portrait option more realistic when both use the same WB?

The most anal people I know about image colour are flower photographers and ceramicists, ever photograph a red flower and it not look anything like the flower did? Try deep blue, purple, and mauve flowers, they are a very difficult to get accurate and you have to use a camera profile specifically for the light you shot in.

That is what they are talking about, specific camera profiles, or more probably an enhanced Bayer filter array and firmware that delivers more accurate colours in more lighting situations more often. Anything that saves processing time and is perceived as "better" will have a market in the studio environment.

This link gives a little background on that Camera Calibration panel. http://x-equals.com/blog/playing-with-color-camera-profiles/


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 3, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> The most anal people I know about image colour are flower photographers and ceramicists, ever photograph a red flower and it not look anything like the flower did? Try deep blue, purple, and mauve flowers, they are a very difficult to get accurate and you have to use a camera profile specifically for the light you shot in.



A lot of trouble with flowers is even more that people seem to stick to sRGB which makes many flowers impossible to show correctly. A wide gamut monitor will give you a much better chance (of course it's true that the WB and profiles and all can still mess with things).


----------



## jrista (Jun 3, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > The most anal people I know about image colour are flower photographers and ceramicists, ever photograph a red flower and it not look anything like the flower did? Try deep blue, purple, and mauve flowers, they are a very difficult to get accurate and you have to use a camera profile specifically for the light you shot in.
> ...



True, sRGB is too endemic. It's really time we started moving towards larger gamuts. Even AdobeRGB isn't quite good enough, as most of the gain with AdobeRGB is in the greens. The deep reds and blues and violets, where a lot of flower color resides, don't really change much with AdobeRGB. ProPhotoRGB may not be the best either, as its extent is even beyond that of human perception, but it's still got the ability to map almost every color at the richest saturation the human eye can discern.

Sadly, even 10-bit screens with 14- and 16-bit 3D LUTs are still not quite good enough at showing reds. I have these Peonies that are just about to burst into color. I've tried photographing them in years past, and I've never been able to get the reds and pinks to come out right...they clip and there is little tonality. Bleh. It's such a pain. My roses have a similar problem, however most of those have a deeper red that actually does fall into gamut for AdobeRGB.

No question, though...rich saturated color, particularly in the non-greens, can be a real problem.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 3, 2014)

jrista said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I had the same problem when using colour slide and a back lit red tulip many years ago. I bracketed 5 stops either side and I was unable to record the details becuase the reds were over saturated. Interestingly, I found that colour print film had a wider dynamic range than slide or digital and yet it was seen as a less "professional" medium. 
Hot reds are a common issue which are not just confined to Digital capture. It's an issue with all capture mediums.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 3, 2014)

Don't forget cosmetics.


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Jun 8, 2014)

cant wait to see the results of this and what it will be like.


----------



## TeT (Jun 8, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > The most anal people I know about image colour are flower photographers and ceramicists, ever photograph a red flower and it not look anything like the flower did? Try deep blue, purple, and mauve flowers, they are a very difficult to get accurate and you have to use a camera profile specifically for the light you shot in.
> ...



But with any gamut, you have to ultimately prepare the image for the end viewer who is likely using sRGB.


----------



## Oceo (Jun 8, 2014)

jrista said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Just to confirm your experience, one or two lifetimes ago when Kodak existed I worked with one of their color film researchers. From time to time he would show up at my lab with test emulsions, photographing everything to be seen. He told me that deep blue, purple, and mauve were the most difficult colors to reproduce with any accuracy. Some sort of daylight metamerism was his explanation, though I forget the details.


----------



## jrista (Jun 8, 2014)

Oceo said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



I think it's difficult to reproduce blues, violets, and magentas because it's hard to reproduce blues richly in any medium. It is difficult to create dye or pigment layers in film that are richly saturated enough to support truly deep hues. It's difficult to get light-emitting substances, or filters with backlights, to support the kind of deep, richly saturated blue that would be necessary for the reproduction of deep blues and purples. 

When it comes to print, lighting and metamerism are significant problems. I think it's possible to create the necessary dyes and pigments, but print dyes and pigments are entirely dependent upon reflecting light. When the incident light is heavily red-shifted most of the time (i.e. your average tungsten lighting in a home, or window-filtered daylight that includes very little UV light), it is very difficult to get those dyes or pigments to fluoresce in such a way that the deep purples and violets and magentas they may be capable of reproducing to actually be reproduced.

Blue is just a sucky color when it comes to color reproduction. I think it always has been, and I think it always will be. It's an inherently weak color, we are inherently less sensitive to it in the highest color-sensitive region of our eyes (the central 2° "foveal spot"), and for any reproduction mediums that rely on reflected light (i.e. print), we rarely illuminate with the necessary kind of light that helps to reproduce the bluer end of the spectrum.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 8, 2014)

I wasn't talking about saturation levels, all gamuts including out eyes have their ceilings with regards saturation, I was talking actual accurate colour. Even if you can't contain a saturation level within a specific mediums gamut, either screen or print, you can get the colour right. The reproduction then becomes a choice of rendering intent, and for images with considerable out of gamut colours Perceptual Intent gives the most accurate rendition, the saturation level might not be accurate but the colours and their relationship to each other are.

To understand the limitations and capabilities of reproduction you have to understand the difference between colour and saturation. The same colour can have an infinite number of saturation levels.

Here is a problem image I printed for another photographers show recently, the first image is the actual image, the second has a gamut warning on, all the blue. That doesn't mean I can't print the correct colours, it just means I can't print the correct colours at the correct saturation levels. How I choose to move those unprintable saturation levels into the gamut I have is the skill of the thing, but getting the colours right is the basics for a printer.


----------



## jrista (Jun 8, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I wasn't talking about saturation levels, all gamuts including out eyes have their ceilings with regards saturation, I was talking actual accurate colour. Even if you can't contain a saturation level within a specific mediums gamut, either screen or print, you can get the colour right. The reproduction then becomes a choice of rendering intent, and for images with considerable out of gamut colours Perceptual Intent gives the most accurate rendition, the saturation level might not be accurate but the colours and their relationship to each other are.
> 
> To understand the limitations and capabilities of reproduction you have to understand the difference between colour and saturation. The same colour can have an infinite number of saturation levels.



I don't think you can really separate "color" and "saturation". "Color" is a three-dimensional factor...it isn't "color" and saturation. Color in terms of the aspects that define it is composed of hue, saturation, and intensity all together...I don't believe those are aspects that can be decoupled. Any given definable color must be defined with all three aspects of color. It is not possible to collapse hue and intensity into some arbitrary term "color", and then decouple saturation and say "I can now select accurate 'color' in every gamut". A deeply saturated red is not the same as a mildly saturated red, neither of which are the same as a weakly saturated red. I don't think you can have an accurate rose red if you aren't achieving the right level of saturation. You may be able to find an acceptable alternative for a real-world rose red...but that does not mean your color is accurate...it only means it is _perceptually acceptable_. 

I think, based on the way you are using the word "color", you are really referring to hue. Yes, you can find the right hue within any gamut. Once you have the necessary hue, it is then a matter of achieving the right intensity level and saturation to make it completely accurate (relative to the real world...as that is the only true source of accuracy). When it comes to gamut, in full 3D, BOTH saturation and intensity can be limited. Only hue, which is a radial factor around the central "z" or intensity axis in 3D color models (i.e. around L* in Lab) can always be accurately selected in all gamuts. Sometimes you cannot achieve a true, pure black, and neither can you achieve the deepest intensities of color near black. Similarly sometimes, especially in print, you cannot achieve the brightest intensities near pure white. Colors that are out of gamut have to do with all three dimensions of color...not just one (i.e. saturation).



privatebydesign said:


> Here is a problem image I printed for another photographers show recently, the first image is the actual image, the second has a gamut warning on, all the blue. That doesn't mean I can't print the correct colours, it just means I can't print the correct colours at the correct saturation levels. How I choose to move those unprintable saturation levels into the gamut I have is the skill of the thing, but getting the colours right is the basics for a printer.



It DOES mean you cannot print the correct _colors_, since _color _is a three dimensional factor. You may be able to achieve the correct _hue_, but your saturation and/or intensity will not be correct in print. You can find perceptually relevant alternatives, but the "colors" themselves are not accurate.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 8, 2014)

It depends to some extent on semantics, and you have far more stamina than I for that.

My old teacher and Wikipedia both referred to Saturation as "the colourfulness of a colour relative to its own brightness". Possibly not the most technical description, but it gets the idea over to non technical folk. 

The rest, we agree on, basically.

If you are going to represent something in a space smaller than it occupies in real life you have to do something, I am saying get the saturation levels relative to each other as close as possible (to fit in the smaller space), get the brightness as close as possible (to fit in the reproduction medium), but there is no excuse for not getting the hue correct. If you do that, even though it isn't "true to nature", it is an accurate rendition and will appear so to the eye.


----------



## jrista (Jun 8, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> It depends to some extent on semantics, and you have far more stamina than I for that.
> 
> My old teacher and Wikipedia both referred to Saturation as "the colourfulness of a colour relative to its own brightness". Possibly not the most technical description, but it gets the idea over to non technical folk.



The difficulty with such a statement, as eloquent as it may be, is that it leaves "color" itself relatively undefined. Color may be a highly overloaded term, but in technical terms, color is the product of three dimensions...when you take out saturation, you still have hue and intensity/brightness. 

I may be playing semantics here, but I think it's important when discussing color accuracy, calibration, etc. to discuss color properly, in all three of it's dimensions. Therefor, I think a more accurate rephrasing might be: "Saturation is the richness of a hue relative to it's intensity."  Then I'd totally agree. 



privatebydesign said:


> The rest, we agree on, basically.
> 
> If you are going to represent something in a space smaller than it occupies in real life you have to do something, I am saying get the saturation levels relative to each other as close as possible (to fit in the smaller space), get the brightness as close as possible (to fit in the reproduction medium), but there is no excuse for not getting the hue correct. If you do that, even though it isn't "true to nature", it is an accurate rendition and will appear so to the eye.



I agree. There is no excuse to not get hue correct. That's a radial factor, and it should be possible in any gamut to choose a proper hue. I still think that saturation matters to a degree. If you have a very tiny gamut, where a deep red is simply not an option, then it doesn't really matter how accurately you choose your hue...your "deep red rose" will still end up some form of pink. In terms of the difference between say sRGB and AdobeRGB, I do agree, a red rose will appear acceptably red as far as your perception goes, that you could have relatively accurately reproduced the color of your image. 

I also think that this very same circumstance is the very reason people such as ourselves are constantly seeking larger gamuts...not just for screen, but really more so for print. Greens are easy to reproduce in print...it's the reds, blues, violets, magentas, and in some cases even the oranges that are so difficult to accurately reproduce in print.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 10, 2014)

TeT said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



That's exactly it. I don't bother with a high end monitor with wide gamut and all this, because the print shops I use only accept sRGB and if I tinker with a file to make it perfect and anyone I send it to uses a medium quality laptop
To view it in, what's the point? For professionals that do commercial work and advertising posters etc, or magazines and all that stuff I can certainly see the point. But for me and lots if others, creating a ColorChecker Passport profile for daylight and tungsten in LR gets you very far from the standard colors out of your camera.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 10, 2014)

Viggo said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



sRGB can cover every hue (colour) it might not be able to render the saturation (intensity) or the brightness (or darkness) of a specific colour, but my point was about getting the hue correct. As you point out, for the vast majority of the time a very good colour workflow can be covered with the simplest of techniques, a ColorChecker and a custom camera profile in post.

All wide gamut monitors do is give you more degrees of saturation and contrast levels, not hue capability. But wider gamut files and workspaces give you much greater post processing latitude, that doesn't mean the end product can't then fit into a smaller gamut like sRGB, just that it is much easier to get an accurate rendition into a smaller gamut of you start out with the wiggle room inherent in a bigger one.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 16, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > TeT said:
> ...



And yet many photographers choose Canon becuase of their inherant colour rendition. Skin tones are far nicer on Canon than Nikon. I belive this is due to hot reds on the Canon gamut. I don't want a clinical colour accuracy, that would be boring. I want a colour interpretation whihc is nice and pleasing on the eye. In a simular way to hi fi...some components are very neutral and a little bland. I like speakers and amps which inject a little colour to the sound and add some charector to the performance. This is why I like Arcam amps and Ruark speakers. Unfortunatly, both companies have been pretty much killed by the iPhone market....go figure!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 16, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



And those "many photographers" would be ill educated.

There is no "inherent" aspect to colour in a RAW file. RAW files don't have a gamut, nor a colourspace, they are rendered into a profile that contains a gamut by software, there is no quality impact or degradation by different rendering algorithms, that is why you can change WB in post to a RAW file with no ill effects, or choose Portrait, Landscape etc Picture Styles after the fact.

Anybody that makes claims of unique colours from different manufacturers needs to spend an hour or two playing with the free with your camera Utility, Picture Style Editor. Or shoot a wedding with a Canon and Nikon shooter using ColorChecker Passports and a custom camera profiled workflow. Colour is not an ethereal, organic feeling, like many audiophiles experiences , in our RGB colourspaces it is represented by three numbers, make a 157,236,36 render as a 158,230,40 instead, and there is no quality loss.

Which is the more "natural" green? It doesn't matter, you have the power to output whichever you choose regarless of what camera you captured it with.


----------



## dgatwood (Jun 16, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > And yet many photographers choose Canon because of their inherent colour rendition. Skin tones are far nicer on Canon than Nikon. I belive this is due to hot reds on the Canon gamut. I don't want a clinical colour accuracy, that would be boring. I want a colour interpretation whihc is nice and pleasing on the eye. In a simular way to hi fi...some components are very neutral and a little bland. I like speakers and amps which inject a little colour to the sound and add some charector to the performance. This is why I like Arcam amps and Ruark speakers. Unfortunatly, both companies have been pretty much killed by the iPhone market....go figure!
> ...



While true, the fact remains that in the default rendering the Canon sensors tend to produce warmer tones with more red and less blue than Sony's sensors, which are still drastically warmer than, for example, Panasonic's ultra-cool sensors. I couldn't tell you how much of that is the choice of colors in the Bayer filters and how much of it is arbitrary white point math differences, but even 20+ years ago, back in the analog CCD days, Canon was always the warmest, Panasonic/JVC the coolest, with the rest at various points in between. And oddly enough, that hasn't changed much despite radical changes in the underlying processing electronics. So I'm guessing that at least part of it is the choice of color filters. Either that or Canon just prefers slightly oversaturated reds.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 16, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



What is "default rendering", DPP, LR, ACR 2003/2010/2012, DXO, Capture One, which profile? Camera Standard, Adobe Standard, Landscape, Portrait, Neutral, Faithful, or a custom profile made for the illumination of the subject? What colourspace, Prophoto, Melissa, RGB, sRBG, CMYK?

That is the point, there is no "default rendering", you have to choose one and making your own is very easy. If your Canon files are red, it is your choice.


----------



## jrista (Jun 16, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



PBD is exactly right here. RAW data is _RAW _data...it has no default, nothing inherent (other than the very minor impact of the silicon's native response curve, however that is generally not even remotely a dominant factor these days). Color is the result of processing, and that processing definitely changes depending on the tool we use to process, the camera profiles/tone curves we apply, the color space we process within, etc.


----------



## dgatwood (Jun 17, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



IMO, the default rendering is what you get when you compute the color information using the camera-provided AWB color temperature value from the RAW file's EXIF data. Any other color temperature value is a user decision, whereas the camera-provided AWB value is what the camera believes to be "truth".


----------



## jrista (Jun 17, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dgatwood said:
> ...



This isn't actually the case. The AWB color temp is just that...a color temp. It is not an actual mathematical algorithm that specified how to achieve that white balance when rendering the raw to screen or to another image format. It's just a piece of metadata. It is then up to the implementer of the RAW editor to actually define the algorithm, to specify the tone curves, that go into actually applying that white balance during rendering. 

That's why people comment on how Lightrooms "Canon Faithful" camera style is different than DPP's "Faithful" camera style. It's the same style NAME, but IMPLEMENTED differently. Having a white balance setting of 5250K is largely meaningless...you will get small, often noticeable differences in white balance depending on what RAW editor you use, because they all use slightly different approaches to applying things like white balance, exposure, saturation, picture or camera styles, etc.

There is no "default rendering"...because RAW is not rendered by default. It is RAW...it's just data, that's it. The rendering ENGINE is what determines _*how *_the RAW is rendered, and there are many RAW rendering engines out there.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 17, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> IMO, the default rendering is what you get when you compute the color information using the camera-provided AWB color temperature value from the RAW file's EXIF data. Any other color temperature value is a user decision, whereas the camera-provided AWB value is what the camera believes to be "truth".



When what computes the colour information? Every program that does the computing will do a different job, the relationship of colours within that program can all set the same WB but still render colours completely differently.

Here are three versions of the same image and they all have the same WB, but the colours are very different, which is "correct"? All I did was tweak the red channel in the camera profile tab. There is no "native" in rendering RAW files, there just isn't.


----------

