Not 36MP!!

mwsilver wrote in post #13941283
I know about the FLAC files. I myself do not use them. I mostly listen to Redbook CD's and LP's. Yes LPs. When I listen to wireless streaming music from my computer to my main stereo only system I usually listen to AIFF files.The whole process of listening to high definition streaming data is still in a somewhat transitional phase. I can't imagine that there are not similar issues and concerns with digital image files.

There are issues with digital image files but they do not involve lossless compression which is, well, lossless. It seems like you avoid anything with the word compression in it - as if it were a dbx product or something . If you can tell any difference between uncompressed and codec'd file format X, the that file format is not lossless, period. If someone calls it lossless and you can prove you can detect a difference, they are wrong - or lying.

AJSJones wrote in post #13941447
There are issues with digital image files but they do not involve lossless compression which is, well, lossless. It seems like you avoid anything with the word compression in it - as if it were a dbx product or something . If you can tell any difference between uncompressed and codec'd file format X, the that file format is not lossless, period. If someone calls it lossless and you can prove you can detect a difference, they are wrong - or lying.

Agreed

AJSJones wrote in post #13941447
If you can tell any difference between uncompressed and codec'd file format X, the that file format is not lossless, period. If someone calls it lossless and you can prove you can detect a difference, they are wrong - or lying.

I know we are saying the same thing, but just to make sure it's 100% clear...

If I write an application, and I say it can turn a WAV into an AIFF, there is nothing that stops me from down sampling the hell out of it first.

A file format, and the actual file can be very different. Just because a file format allows for lossless compression, does not mean the tool that created the file chose to not lose any data.

mafoo wrote in post #13942877
I know we are saying the same thing, but just to make sure it's 100% clear...

If I write an application, and I say it can turn a WAV into an AIFF, there is nothing that stops me from down sampling the hell out of it first.

A file format, and the actual file can be very different. Just because a file format allows for lossless compression, does not mean the tool that created the file chose to not lose any data.

Yup - if you can't reconstruct an identical copy of the original data, then the overall process used cannot be called lossless. I presume you can downsample a wav to a lower sampling rate and lower bit depth and lose information that way. That is therefore not lossless - it produces a smaller file so it is compressed compared to the original, but you can't reconstruct the highbit original.

Different raw converters can produce different results but this happens because they process the same reconstructed sensor data (they decompress the cr2 to the same, original data set) but then process them differently during demosaicing interpolating etc.

I want a Canon that rivals the D800E. A 36 MP would be great.

GergReltub wrote in post #13943519
I want a Canon that rivals the D800E. A 36 MP would be great.

Agreed. My money would be on the table!

If you are dropping $3,000 for a new body and almost as much for a mark ii lens, why wouldn't you just blow another hundred bucks on a 1TB hard drive and use your gear's full potential?

jemanner wrote in post #13943537
Agreed. My money would be on the table!

While I have no argument in principle, everyone seem to assume that a higher MP sensor alone will be that superior. The current rumors for the 5D Mark III, which supposedly will be announced on Monday or Tuesday, are that it will have 22MP. Until the whole package, not just the sensor, is reviewed, who can say how the Mark III will compare to the D800. Regardless of the sensor density, the IQ of the final result will tell the tale

I thought I'd just conclude this thread by saying that for once, amazingly, Canon is giving me exactly what I want in the 5DIII. It seems (on the basis of comments since 5DIII was annouced), that I'm in something of a minority about being 100% pleased with this offering. Thanks Canon, the samples coming through look very good, the ISO looks amazing, I'm very pleased.

Now, who wants to give me $3,500...

Wissigle wrote in post #13839012
Please Canon, do not make the 5DIII 36MP. Please!!

And in other news, Nikon have jumped from 12MP in the D700 to 36MP in the D800! what happened to everything in between!

Wissigle wrote in post #13839242
Fair points gentlemen, and I probably will not get a 5D at 36MP it that's what's released. Everyone is different and I guess I have very specific requirements. I want 18 to 24MP in full frame, very solid body (aka EOS 3), excellent low light, and a half decent AF system. High FPS not required. That's all!

AM I the only one hoping that this camera can replace my Hassel in 85% of the work and also bring a whole new level of fast workflow to great files?? Im hoping so much that I traded in all my Canon gear to nikon. been with canon since 1996...

zincozinco wrote in post #14050107
AM I the only one hoping that this camera can replace my Hassel in 85% of the work and also bring a whole new level of fast workflow to great files?? Im hoping so much that I traded in all my Canon gear to nikon. been with canon since 1996...

what kind of hassel do you have?

GergReltub wrote in post #13943519
I want a Canon that rivals the D800E. A 36 MP would be great.

Can't just keep cramming pixels into a full frame sensor... the next logical step is medium format Canon. Wonder when we'll start seeing those.

36 MP is only slightly more dense than the 50D - then there came the 60D and 7D. 36 MP on FF is still just fine in terms of capability, lower density than we know can produce great IQ...

AJSJones wrote in post #14059415
36 MP is only slightly more dense than the 50D - then there came the 60D and 7D. 36 MP on FF is still just fine in terms of capability, lower density than we know can produce great IQ...

actually. we'll see about that. I don't think FULL FRAME glass has been stressed with this pixel density before. Crop cameras only stress the center of the lenses, which tend to be the best, but now the edges of the glass are also going to have to resolve those tiny pixels... we'll see how edge sharpness will react to these new MP monsters.

The issue is not with the sensors but with the glass - the higher density sensors will reveal the limitations of the lenses more than lower density sensors, that's for sure. Thus, with the more dense sensors, you'll simply need better glass

Why do you think Canon has been improving their lenses recently? They want them out there so when the new 36MP camera finally shows up, they'll have some (of their own, as opposed to Zeiss and co) good lenses to test it and show it off with - and people will go oooooh anbd ahhhhh and want both the new camera and have to buy the new lenses to get full advantage