1st Hour with the 7D

Haha, I'm literally shooting the back of a DVD! I don't have any charts handy so, whatever works.

3979026738_c9fd20c1bf.jpg
3978270685_a5eab3c881.jpg
3979037392_b57142e51b.jpg
3978281105_41f8558e26.jpg
3978286395_9cea5c7e04.jpg
3978291879_22cc136117.jpg
3978297589_939ae24b73.jpg
3979064322_8a4fa37eea.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'm liking faithful but not sure about the banding in the reds. Hard to tell without seeing a control shot. Keep up the testing bro and once again a big thanks. Great stuff.
 
Kholi said:
Can you confirm a suspicion for me in a more scientific fashion? Does 640 ISO properly exposed retain more highlight detail and produce a smoother gradation from mids to highs than lower ISO's in the native range?

Friggin SICK info!!!! THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!
Click to expand...


Vote vote vote.

Faithful was the curve/setting I started out using because I noticed it was, well, Faithful to color reproduction. BUT... the noise I noticed and the banding (as J Davis points out) are what pushed me to Neutral.
 
Kholi said:
Vote vote vote.

Faithful was the curve/setting I started out using because I noticed it was, well, Faithful to color reproduction. BUT... the noise I noticed and the banding (as J Davis points out) are what pushed me to Neutral.
Click to expand...

Hey Kholi, I looked at neutral but the greens were too lime and i considered the trade off.
Green tends to occur all around us, trees etc. Maybe neutral is better for indoors?
or when you want to avoid reds?
Faithful would be better for any natural settings methinks.
 
Thanks for the ISO noise tests! And the CD/DVD. Really appreciate you taking the time to post it up!

So 160, 320, 640, and if you have to then 1250. Neutral. Right?
 
Wow, nice tests! Thanks for taking the time to do this. I have a question though... how come the noise we can see in the first test is not visible in the last one? I know you used some filters to make the noise more visible but I don't see how would be better to use ISO 160 instead of 125 for lower noise from the last test... anyone?
 
That last test is heavily Vimeo compressed, I think it's the worst test of the bunch cause it's so hard to tell, especially since 125 is so underexposed. Maybe these rough noise profiles will help:

6400
3979877321_c17186196a_b.jpg

5000
3980634972_69d71b83d3_b.jpg

4000
3979876101_792a098e7c_b.jpg

3200
3980633798_4cdfcc7e98_b.jpg

2500
3979874781_05ce412c4c_b.jpg

2000
3979874183_847ac265b5_b.jpg

1600
3979873483_65d64d0eca_b.jpg

1250
3980631072_02c1a2958f_b.jpg

1000
3979872259_093ff0af41_b.jpg

800
3980629696_63902fcf68_b.jpg

640
3979870941_f9b330686a_b.jpg

500
3980628446_acf46d9fe1_b.jpg

400
3980627850_53065e370e_b.jpg

320
3980627302_be157fbbaf_b.jpg

250
3980626730_07a858171b_b.jpg

200
3979867775_f19edf08f5_b.jpg

160
3979867175_a8aceb1ea6_b.jpg

125
3980625062_bd453d52bf_b.jpg

100
3979866153_46e18da6a6_b.jpg


320 + Close > 160 + Open For better noise? IMHO?
 
Last edited:
So let me see if I get this straight. The very first tests was with the cap on, so exposure was constant, allays the lowest possible. But if we see a picture of some, then wouldn't the lighting need to be modified, so that there was equal exposure? Otherwise the conditions change and noise changes too. Right?
 
You have it right Roberto, the first test is probably more accurate than anything in this thread. Everything else wasn't done in controlled conditions, just what I had available. You'll have to wait for Barrys book for something more accurate ;)
 
Thanks again for taking all the time to run through these tests and post them up here.

P.S. You should see about having prints made and submit to a modern art gallery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top