Pregled posta

Marketing

Motion-Free Super-Resolution

Motion-Free Super-Resolution is a compilation of very recent work on various methods of generating super-resolution (SR) images from a set of low-resolution images. The current literature on this topic deals primarily with the use of motion cues for the purpose of generating SR images. These cues have, it is shown, their advantages and disadvantages. In contrast, this book shows that cues other than motion can also be used for the same purpose, and addresses both the merits and demerits of these new techniques.


Motion-Free Super-Resolution supersedes much of the lead author’s previous edited volume, "Super-Resolution Imaging," and includes an up-to-date account of the latest research efforts in this fast-moving field. This sequel also features a style of presentation closer to that of a textbook, with an emphasis on teaching and explanation rather than scholarly presentation.

Motion-Free Super-Resolution is a compilation of very recent work on various methods of generating super-resolution (SR) images from a set of low-resolution images. The current literature on this topic deals primarily with the use of motion cues for the purpose of generating SR images. These cues have, it is shown, their advantages and disadvantages. In contrast, this book shows that cues other than motion can also be used for the same purpose, and addresses both the merits and demerits of these new techniques.


Motion-Free Super-Resolution supersedes much of the lead author’s previous edited volume, "Super-Resolution Imaging," and includes an up-to-date account of the latest research efforts in this fast-moving field. This sequel also features a style of presentation closer to that of a textbook, with an emphasis on teaching and explanation rather than scholarly presentation.

the real isue of this 5D2 is its very limited practical DR and it is very difficult to shoot this kind of super high DR required scene without HDR that I really hate.

now, I am testing a K5 , it has really incredible DR at base ISO, actually till about ISO800.

I think at base ISO , the K5 is actually a bit better camera than the 5D2.

But Pentax UIF is quite horrible IMO and it is difficult to change AF points while framing through its really dim VF.

AF of the K5 was not at all bad , I was expected to be shocked how slow or bad its AF actually but it was good , at least as good as the 5D2 or D90.

The K5 has strange behavior that it some times takes about full 6-10 seconds to display imgs just shot.

I guess this is because it has very limited small buffer and so needs to write into slow SD cards continuously.

But if speed is not important , the K5 might be a bit better camera than the D700 or the D7000.

And I think it has the cleanest shadow I've ever seen in APS-C or 35mm digital , it wont match any MFB, but it has the best DR and best shadow quality in 35mm and APS-C class league.

It is a nice camera but my DA18-135 WR is a just ok lens ,slow and its corner quality is really lousy that makes my EF24-105f4LIS look like an extremely sharp lens in comparison.

I have only 2 Pentax lenses now and my other Pentax lens is DA*50-135f2.8SDM ,which is quite good but not up to full potential IQ of the very best APS-C sensor used in the K5, if Pentax had a as good zoom as my EF70-200f2.8LISMK2 , I would be very happy to get it but there is no such a lens from Pentax or sony.

IMO, the K5 deserves a much better lens than these , I mostlikely trying a few more Pentax lenses and then decide what I 'll do with it.

I 'll try the DA*55f1.4SDM on next monday , I may be able to compare it on my K5 to my 85LMK2 on my 5D2.

After that the DA*60-250f4SDM and FA77f1.8Limited.

If the K5 works out well , I will use it for low ISO high DR required scene such as this one.

And use my Canon for general shooting.

AFS18-200VR was not as bad as many guys just got pro lens now kinda guys talk about it on line, its bokeh is very bad ,though.

Its resolution figures are not as bad as many think they are . These who just bought a couple of f2.8 zooms kinda people see it through prejudiced filter so they do never accept it really is a quite sharp and contrasty lens or they refuse to see it.

and think if we spend a couple of grands on a lens like Nikon AFS24-70f2.8G , to replace this or Tamron 17-50 or 28-75f2.8 ,each of which costs about 1/6th of the Nikon 24-70f2.8G, we should feel or want to defend or justify our expensive lens purchase......

So, many people have f2.8 Nikkor, Canon L or Zeiss trash it regardless of its real life performance or its actually not so bad resolving power in comparison to so-called pro lens which costs more than a grand and may hurt their back.

As I compare it to the aFS17-55f2.8DX and Canon EF24-105f4LIS , I think at least my 2 copies of this super zoom compares these much more expensive short zooms very well at center and even borders..........not corners though.

Actually,it is a good lens as long as we correct its very pronounced barrel distortion at 18mm , but I think any one has a digital camera has a PC, so, the distortion really a problem ? I think it is not.

Finally , I had a couple of 18-200VR's and the one I bought in last year was much sharper at corners than the older one bought in 2007.

And also one I tried to compared to my AFS16-85VR and Tamron17-50f2.8 at a shop in last week was even sharper than my own copy of the 18-200VR bought in last year and sold it in this May.
I guess, the newer copy of this particular lens, the better optically with a bit better zoom design(the newer ones were also more resistant to the infamous zoom creep).

My last copy had no infamous zoom creep issue at all.

But my first one had it.