Jump to content

Sony isn't serious about fixing 11+7 bit color


Recommended Posts

If you read the Kimio Interview closely, you can see that Sony and Kimio aren't taking 14 bit color seriously. 

 

 

Kimio all but laughs off the fraud of Sony advertising 14 bit color on its cameras and Sony’s 2 year lag in offering a fix for the problem.

 

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/06/16/sony-qa-the-must-have-sensor-tech-of-the-future

 

 

Look at the text just after the copper photo.

#1.   Kimio laughs when the interviewer introduces the subject.

# 2.  Kimio admits that Sony’s compression scheme doesn’t produce 14 bit non-compressed images.

# 3.  Kimio won’t offer any guarantee whether they will fix it or not.

# 4.  Kimio moves on to next subject as fast as possible.

 

Sony fanboys are in a dream if they think that Sony is going to fix this issue or offer a retroactive fix to the hundreds of thousands that purchased a Sony camera and was cheated through their fraudulent marketing practices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Max, why do you waste so much time and energy trolling?

People are very capable of deciding and choosing what cameras they like using or dislike using for themselves.

Nikon is a wonderful company and they make wonderful amazing quality cameras, but why go out of your way to discredit another company that is not Nikon? What is your agenda?

Your constant unbalanced trollish posts only serve to reveal that you have some sort unbalanced obsession, or possibly have some form of mental disability.

If you are mentally handicapped Max, please let us know so that we can better understand the nature of your posts.

 

Regards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the actual transcript of the section in question:

DM: This next question is more of a request maybe, but we've had a lot of questions asking about raw format. And...

KM: Ah, raw. <laughs> 14-bit.

DE: Yeah, well 14-bit is OK, but many people are asking "could we please have uncompressed RAWs?"

KM: Sony RAW is compressed, not uncompressed. But if we're getting a lot of requests for it, we should make such a kind of no-compression raw. Of course we recognize that. But I cannot give you a guarantee when we're going to fix or not fix.

DE: Right. When you're going to address that, yeah.

KM: Sure, sure. And so we recognize the customer's requirement, and actually we are working on it.

DE: So it's something that you're aware of. I'm sure that the image processing pipeline is optimized for the way that it is now, but it seems to me that, while it might involve some trading off some performance, that it could just be a firmware change. Could it? Would you be able to provide uncompressed raw as a firmware update, or would it require new hardware?

KM: Right, yes. So... not hardware.

DE: It is firmware. OK, good! I think people would be willing to accept a slower transfer time or lower frame rate in an uncompressed mode. Some people really, really want that.

Your observations are pretty screwed up:

#1. Kimio laughs when the interviewer introduces the subject.
#2. Kimio admits that Sony’s compression scheme doesn’t produce 14 bit non-compressed images.
#3. Kimio won’t offer any guarantee whether they will fix it or not.
#4. Kimio moves on to next subject as fast as possible.
 

1. Duh, of course he laughs, he knows this is an issue, and he acknowledges that it is an issue. I realize you are just a troll, but turning an embarrassed laugh into something evil is pretty stupid. I am sure he gets asked about it every time he talks to anyone.
2. Where? He says nothing of the sort. Once again, the end user is the judge and the only one that matters. I am willing to accept the limitations and hope Sony is able to fix it via Firmware. 
3. Of course he doesn't. He works for the company, he does not run Sony. Wanting to do something and being able to actually do it can be two different things. He does say it will be firmware and the desire is to make it available on existing cameras. Another comment that paints you as an idiot.
4. Yep, they moved on as the interviewer changed subjects since he was satisfied with the positive answer.

Sony cameras just like any camera are compromises and a huge set of decisions. Every company has its culture and its issues. Nikon for example has screwed around with its mount so many times it makes my head hurt. Canon on the other hand had the balls to do the mount right when they painfully made the decision int he late 80's to leave the legacy mount behind. It's the reason Canon has had an advantage on  lenses every since. Personally I hate the ergonomics of the Nikon cameras and much prefer Canon's menu structure. That is my preference and used Canon from 1989-2015 when I went Sony.

Keep crying your tears of impotent rage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I worry when I read that "compression" is a problem.  LOSSY compression is a problem, or at least a potential problem.  Compression that is LOSSLESS, i.e. retains all the data, is wonderful.  

 

I do think that Sony should provide a LOSSLESS compression option like other vendors do, so that photographers can experiment and decide for themselves when it's worth the space and speed penalty.  

 

Mostly what we get on the internet are snarky comments like "show me where it matters ha ha".  But we can't determine for sure where it matters unless we can do the comparison.  

 

I also have read that the losses of the lossy compression are greater in AFC mode than in AFS mode. That is, again, as a compromise for speed.  I wish, at the least, that Sony would document this clearly and give us control, so that we can decide what is best for our needs.  (Perhaps it is documented and I missed it?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Posts

    • Thanks for the very useful information. The 16-55 tempts me, I can live with the absence of stabilisation, what holds me is the price tag. As always, there is not such a thing like a free lunch in life. The Sony gives performance at a reasonable size but with no stabilisation and higher price tag, the Zeiss is compact, stabilised and reasonably priced but lower performed, while the Tamron provides performance at very good price and stabilisation at the expense of bulkiness. 😀 All in all, I think I will give a try to the Tamron, once I have taken in my hands. Here are two cutouts taken close to the center of the picture. The sharper one is the kit zoom, the other is the 18-105 mm, at approximately the same lenght around 40 mm at /f 8. The difference is impressive and more impressive for me is that all the lenses in the shop had the same behaviour on two different cameras. At this point looks like a whole batch and not just a lens.  

      Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

    • That's a pity and certainly doesn't match with my experience with the 18-105: mine is definately on par with the 16-50 kit lens (which on its own was as decent as I could expect from such a cheap lens). Sure, dont expect sharp corners especially wide open, but in the center my 18-105 left little to be desired across most of the zoom range. The 16-55 does beat it in every regard except zoom range though. The Tamron 17-70 trades blows with the 16-55 and might be the better choice in some cases. I went for the 16-55 because of the smaller size (I also found the 18-105 too bulky most of the time) and slightly wider FoV. My camera has a stabilized sensor so stabilized optics was no requirement for me. As you noted, I kept the 18-105 on my old A6000 for the occasional video project.
    • Thanks! The 18-105 mm /f4 was PERFECT lens for my needs but a HUGE disappointed. I bought it with the camera, then I brought it with me on a trip. To my disappointed, all pictures came out slightly blurred, like the lens was slightly out of focus. Stepping down was not solving the issue. The kit lens was definitely better, to my surprise. Thinking that I got a lemon, I went back to the shop where I bought It (luckily, I has bought both the camera and the lens in a brick and mortar store). We tested the lens on another camera and it was the same. Then we tested other copies of the same lens that the store had in stock and all showed the same lack if sharpness. All pictures slightly out of focus. In the end I returned the lens and used the money to buy other equipment. I must admit that it was a perfect lens for video but it is not what I use my camera for. Actually this was confirmed by the shop owner, most buyers of the 18-105 mm are interested in its video capabilities. I will have a look at the Tamron, the Sony 16-55 is almost double the price, at least here, so I will keep it out of the picture, at least for the time being. The Sigma also looks as an interesting option.  
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...