The companies also announced a partnership to work together on high-end camera drones that would combine DJI’s drone aerial technology with Hasselblad’s cameras. Last year DJI took a minority stake in Hasselblad, the iconic Swedish camera company. I have done a few 24bit HDRs with my DSLR - not found a need for 32bit ones yet though. Be realistic though more bits means more memory and more processing time - 16bits is generally more than enough unless you have a *really* large DR range, so that's what I use as a default. Probably worth pointing out that you can even do all this with HDR panos if you wanted (it takes a LOT of memory to stitch and edit them though!), then bring the resulting image into Photoshop with either all the data still intact as a 16/24/32bit image or it cut back to 8bit depending on what you want to do. Generally, I'll try and have the overall look and feel of the image (curves, tone, and contrast) pretty much finalised before I even bring it into Photoshop. The main thing for me is that CameraRaw definitely retains the full tonal range of the raw files after it has stitched them which is a major plus as you have much more latitude to make general adjustments to the stitched image before you even start finetuning. That's part of it for me, the other being that I've used Photoshop since v6 (that's straight v6, not CS6), so I'm rather familiar with where things are and the keyboard shortcuts! I'm pretty sure some of the other leading software will be using a similar approach, the lower end stuff perhaps not so much though the test is to play with the exposure slider and see how many stops you can push it before your highlights or shadows are toast. Thank you very much for all the replies ! I appreciate it The resolution of the camera is not good enough for me and I need to grow the resolution by stitching several images together. My aim is to achieve natural looking results with as little distortion as possible. What are the best settings to use ? ( Please see the jpg attached ) I have been interested in the stitches, because of the resolution it gives me in comparison to the single Raw file.Ĭonsidering the replyś Photoshop is a common tool to use for stitching the files together and now to the important question I still love film, so I also shoot regularly with my 500CM, 503CW, X-Pan and Flexbody. ( I have been shooting my Hasselblad cameras for 25 years ( among other cameras ) and at the moment my main work camera is X1-D. Only thing that matters is the image quality. I was not aware of it - with the same breath I must admit I could not care less about the name that is printed on the device. Interesting to read about the Hasselblad branding. I find these rebrandings irritating especially since they're usually specialist, expensive camera companies that have nothing to do with even the technology their name has been slapped on, the Hasseblad Sony RX100 and e-mount cameras are a good example of how nothing was done apart from some garish casing (at least some of the Leicasonics look ok) although my favourite is an old Nokia phone with supposedly a Zeiss lens which was a single piece of plastic. I realise those seem odd criticisms given I am a fan of the M2P but that's for its sensor which is where the camera gets its advantages from and that is most definitely Sony. The lens is also poor but to be fair that is compromised by the size. I don't believe for a moment Hasselblad had anything to do with it and if they did it's admitting they're not very good at because the processing on the M2P is extremely poor and a long way behind other 1in cameras. ![]() The claim it's the 'image processing' is another favourite among the branding companies especially Leica on the rebranded Panasonics because it's not so easy to disprove. Beyond that Hasselblad do not have anything to do with cameras smaller than medium format which are about as different as you can get from the 1in sensor in the M2P, most of the smaller sensor cameras they've sold are hideously rebranded Sony's. The easiest counterpoint to demonstrate that Hasselblad have nothing more than branding on the M2P is to look at the Phantom 4 Pro which despite being very similar to the M2P, has no Hasselblad branding. Coming from a DJI/Hasselblad source of course they're going to make such a claim it's what makes the Hasselblad branding successful just as numerous other companies like Leica and Zeiss have found that they can make money on their name with products that have nothing to do with them.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |