ScottGee1 wrote:
> Out of curiosity, have you called to ask *them* for the info? I've
> found C@non very helpful *if* you persist and get to the Right
> Person.
I have not, but in a way, I feel as though I shouldn't have to. It
doesn't seem to be overly important is my guess. The GretagMacBeth
colorchecker seems to be the defacto standard in what we choose to
determine what is "good". But this isn't the full-story. We're
always looking at what has been processed by the support chips. A
RAW file, for example, truely isn't RAW.
I ask this question: Am I the only photographer in the world that
has any interest in seeing this data? Or does it not matter anymore
because we've now become conditioned to accept "wow, that's a pretty
picture" as being sufficient? What about the high-end studio
photograpers that shoot fashion/clothing/etc--I can't imagine them
just accepting whatever the manufacturer says as being good enough.
Nor are they going to hand-gig thousands of RAW files one-by-one to
get things right.
As I look back through some of the deep pee reviews, which is
essentially our only standardized testing available to us, the common
man, we can see the GretagMacBeth charts and how vastly different
they are from one setting to another and even from one camera to
another. Yet, we gloss over those tests and jump right to the
resolution and ISO tests.
I could inquire from Canon what their cmos response curves are, but I
have a feeling that I'd get blown off pretty quickly.
AG
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|