On 7/5/08, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Why in the world would I want to worry about the optical/electrical
> interface if the output looks good to my eye?
Does it? Are you sure? Do you KNOW what is not being captured? Granted,
the 5D sensor is the cat's meow, but maybe it's because you haven't
encountered that one problem situation YET that will bite you where the sun
ain't shining.
A bride will agonize over every detail of a wedding--including getting the
flowers and dresses to match. Are you sure your camera will keep those
lavender flowers lavender or are they going to turn blue? No amount of
post-production will get those flowers correct without localized manual
toning--on EVERY shot. Why? Because the digital camera's eye to the world
is the sensor and if the sensor is colorblind, you can only artifically
colorize it later.
Every model of Canon camera has a different color response. The flip answer
we always read is "custom white balance". Yeah right. It isn't the
answer. One reason why the 5D is so popular is because of the skintones.
Say what? Based on what you and Moose are saying, it doesn't matter since
you can tweek and tone to your heart's desire during the RAW conversion
phase. This may be true for some things, but you are bit-bending and not
all bits will bend the same way without falling over and breaking. The
beauty of the 5D (and E-1) is that the sensor has a response curve which
requires less bit-bending than others. This is also why cameras, such as the
20D and 30D as well as several of the Nikons don't handle tonal and color
adjustments as well. And this is also why some scanned films don't handle
adjustment as well as others either. Velvia is among the toughest to
manipulate in post.
AG
--
> Ken Norton
> ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.zone-10.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|