> My camera (a Canon PowerShot S50) lets me see what the exposure will be 
> without taking a picture - so I can adjust it before even shooting.   I 
> typically set the value to -1/3 because I can use raw tools to lighten it 
> up (that idea of not overexposing the image that someone else mentioned).

1. My camera doesn't offer RAW format anyway.

2. Isn't under-exposure equally as bad as over-exposure?

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 May 2010 09:56:50 +0200, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
> 1. My camera doesn't offer RAW format anyway.

The same technique can be applied to JPEG as well, but you will run into  
posterization much sooner.



> 2. Isn't under-exposure equally as bad as over-exposure?

A slight under-exposure can usually be compensated for in post-processing  
without too much quality loss. With over-exposure, some detail is  
generally lost.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

>> 1. My camera doesn't offer RAW format anyway.
> 
> The same technique can be applied to JPEG as well, but you will run into 
> posterization much sooner.

Indeed, I quickly discovered that it's usually hopeless to try.

>> 2. Isn't under-exposure equally as bad as over-exposure?
> 
> A slight under-exposure can usually be compensated for in 
> post-processing without too much quality loss. With over-exposure, some 
> detail is generally lost.

A slight anything is better than a drastic something. ;-)

If the image is too under-exposed, bits of it will be pure black. Same 
problem as if it's over-exposed.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> If the image is too under-exposed, bits of it will be pure black.

Almost never.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
    you literally shooting yourself in the foot.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 May 2010 09:43:14 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> 1. My camera doesn't offer RAW format anyway.
>> 
>> The same technique can be applied to JPEG as well, but you will run
>> into posterization much sooner.
> 
> Indeed, I quickly discovered that it's usually hopeless to try.

Just depends on the tools and one's willingness to experiment.

>>> 2. Isn't under-exposure equally as bad as over-exposure?
>> 
>> A slight under-exposure can usually be compensated for in
>> post-processing without too much quality loss. With over-exposure, some
>> detail is generally lost.
> 
> A slight anything is better than a drastic something. ;-)
> 
> If the image is too under-exposed, bits of it will be pure black. Same
> problem as if it's over-exposed.

Sure, that's why I only tend to slightly underexpose the image - I find I 
get good results that way (and who argues with good results?).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> For the most part, I think they are right. The patents are in coding and
>> decoding, and patent infringement does not extend to the end user.
> 
> Well, it's the end user doing the decoding. And if I upload an h.264
> video to a host and that host distributes it, the host isn't doing
> encoding or decoding any more than the routers are. So while this may be
> business as usual, it doesn't sound like the legal system has figured
> out the reality of the situation yet.
> 

Only if the end user writes the software to decode the video, is the end
user doing any patent infringment.

>> If the video encoder
>> paid their license and the video player did as well, should they finally
>> be asked to, then the video host should not be liable.
> 
> That would be my guess, yes, but this is the legal system we're talking
> about.
> 

Patents have been relatively clear of all the drama that surrounds
copyright enforcement. There is still that trouble over what patents
should be allowed to cover, but enforcement seems to be pretty stable.

> And what happens if the video transcoding is hosted where there's no
> software patents? Does that make it clear to send that encoded video
> back to the USA?
> 
> I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as either side makes it seem. :-)
> 

Now, that would be a fun one. By patent law, as long as all of the
infringement took place outside jurisdiction, it should be in the clear.
So, if the video is sent of to Sealand as any other video format, and it
is encoded there and sent back as an h.264 format, it should be fine.
Now, the trouble would be that no one in the patent coverage could watch
the video, unless they sent it back out of the area and received back an
unencumbered format. At which point, you are better distributing the
first format to begin with.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> Now, they mention
>> YouTube, and I suppose since currently YouTube does both encode from any
>> video type to h.264 and then display through a decoder that they are
>> distrubting, their flash player, that they might be liable to pay a
>> license as well.
> 
> Youtube doesn't distribute a video decoder. Flash has it built-in, so it's 
> Adobe who is distributing the decoder.
> 

So Adobe pays the license, it still isn't the end user's responsibility.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Only if the end user writes the software to decode the video, is the end
> user doing any patent infringment.

Not in the US. A patent covers using the invention as well as building it.

> Patents have been relatively clear of all the drama that surrounds
> copyright enforcement. There is still that trouble over what patents
> should be allowed to cover, but enforcement seems to be pretty stable.

True. That doesn't make it less costly. :-)

>> And what happens if the video transcoding is hosted where there's no
>> software patents? Does that make it clear to send that encoded video
>> back to the USA?
>>
>> I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as either side makes it seem. :-)
> 
> Now, that would be a fun one. By patent law, as long as all of the
> infringement took place outside jurisdiction, it should be in the clear.

One would hope.

> So, if the video is sent of to Sealand as any other video format, and it
> is encoded there and sent back as an h.264 format, it should be fine.

I disagree with that. Decoding infringes the patents, at least in the USA. 
If I buy a patented device someone else built, I'm not allowed to use it 
without a license. Most people who build the device buy a license that 
allows the buyers to use it without restriction. However, MPEG-LA doesn't 
sell that sort of license, or it's prohibitively expensive.

> Now, the trouble would be that no one in the patent coverage could watch
> the video, unless they sent it back out of the area and received back an
> unencumbered format. At which point, you are better distributing the
> first format to begin with.

Yes, exactly.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
    you literally shooting yourself in the foot.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> So Adobe pays the license, it still isn't the end user's responsibility.

It depends what license Adobe bought. Maybe they only bought a distribution 
license, and not a use license.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
    you literally shooting yourself in the foot.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> So Adobe pays the license, it still isn't the end user's responsibility.
> 
> It depends what license Adobe bought. Maybe they only bought a
> distribution license, and not a use license.
> 

They are distributing a product with the intent that someone uses it. It
would take a very determined judge to read their distribution as intent
only to distribute without the user actually using the product. Which,
if that is their intent, they are already in violation of some many
consumer protection acts that they would be liable for any cost to the
consumer.

Post a reply to this message