Are you as excited about the latest HD SLRs as I am? Then check out my news feed on the new PDN HD SLR Workshops page. I’ll be writing three or four segments a month covering new HD SLR cameras and lenses, video accessories, and shooting techniques. Hopefully, I’ll have room to squeeze in a few user profiles and videos too!

It doesn’t get much bigger, or better, than the CES show in Las Vegas. And in Las Vegas, size matters! In this photo, Panasonic shows off its 152-inch plasma TV. Price? If you have to ask, you can’t afford it!

Every time I head out to cover the annual Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in January several questions go through my mind: Is it going to be warmer in Las Vegas than it is here in NY? Are the lines going to be as long again? And what will be the hottest technology at the show? The answer to the first question is always a gamble (appropriate for the town in question, don’t you think?): I’ve actually been to the CES show three times when it was snowing before, during, or just after the show, and several times when it was actually warmer in NY than in Nevada. This time around, however, I got a break on the temperature, as daytime highs in Vegas averaged in the mid to upper 60’s, and the show floor was even hotter, literally and figuratively! (Back just one day from the show and the temp outside my studio in NY right now is 1 degree! Brrrr!)

As for question number two: In the past I’ve referred to CES as the “Hurry up and wait!” show. This year, despite my best efforts to avoid the slowdown in Vegas by getting there several days early for “Press only” events, I ran smack into the slowdowns again. First, it took nearly 13 hours to get to Las Vegas (compared to a normal 8 hours), thanks to major incompetence on the part of U.S. Air (USeless Air). Second, the onslaught of approximately 110,000 attendees flocking to the show this year taxed the taxi system as usual, with wait time stretching from 20 to 40 minutes in many cases. And thinner than usual staffs at all of the hotels led to longer lines at check in, restaurants, and other venues. As a veteran of the show, I always pick a hotel near the monorail, stock my fridge with Starbucks coffee the night before to avoid morning lines, and take the monorail whenever I can. But this year, unusually long lines were also the norm at the MGM monorail station heading towards the show, and even my secret short cuts around the show floors were little help.

However, if I had to do it all over again, I would—but perhaps I’d stay a day or two after the show to enjoy the great weather I barely had time to enjoy, or wander through the show on its closing day to enjoy more of the incredible displays and new technology that I’m sure I missed. My primary goals at the CES show have always been to find new and innovative technologies that will affect the way photographers and videographers capture, display, and share their photos and videos. At this year’s show, there were many exciting developments on the capture front, and quite a few online, picture-frame, or cell-phone based “sharing” technologies announced. But I’d have to dub CES 2010 as the year that large screen TV’s finally got to the point where they can’t go much further—especially when it comes to image quality, 3D capability, thickness, or size. (I’m sure I’ll be proven wrong on the size, but size isn’t everything when you can’t even fit the current size champ, a 152-inch Panasonic plasma screen, through the doorway of even the typical mac mansion. See photo above.)

After analyzing last year’s CES show and a number of other big shows I had attended in 2008, I predicted the rapid growth of 3D capture and display technology during my presentation at the DIMA show prior to PMA in February, 2009. (What’s Next in Consumer Digital Photography? DIMA 2009). However, even I didn’t expect to see the advancements in 3D capture and display technology showcased by Panasonic, or the 3D and LED displays that wowed the audiences and stopped floor traffic dead at Samsung, LG, and Sony booths. Panasonic introduced the first pro-level, relatively compact 3D HD camcorder with a dual optic lens that helps feed a stereo view to dual HD sensors within the camera. I believe this model is just a hint of what’s to come out this year on the camcorder front—but I’ll bet money that Panasonic is working on a similar solution for its G-Series interchangeable lens hybrid cameras. At the same press conference, Panasonic introduced several large 3D-capable plasma screens, a 3D capable Blu-Ray disc player, and a announced a partnership with Direct TV to support a full HD, 3D channel in 2010. (Note: At the Panasonic press conference it was revealed that unless a “3D-capable” TV or monitor features a new HDMI version 1.4 connector, it won’t be compatible with standardized 3D playback devices such as the Blu-Ray player mentioned. Nice surprise to anyone who bought a 3D TV over the holidays featuring the advance 1.3 HDMI connector!)

While Panasonic gets my vote for numero uno on offering the best end-to-end solution for 3D technology, it had quite a bit of competition from the other display manufactures when it came to 3D TV and LED TV. At LG, ultra thin LED monitors were the big attraction, with colors that jumped off the screens. The same can be said of the LED displays at Samsung, which also showcased several 3D-ready LED models that combine the best of both worlds. Samsung gets my vote for having the best monitor display I’ve every seen in my life—on a scale that defies description, but hopefully can be approximated by some of the photos in the following gallery:

123►

At home, I not only watch my HD videos on it. I’m looking to replace my ailing 2003 vintage- 57-inch Sony HD CRT rear projection model this year, and until I saw the Samsung 3D LED display, I was leaning towards an LED TV vs a 3D capable plasma or LCD model as my next purchase for the living room. For me, the color accuracy, expanded color gamut, and the glass-free viewing experience you get from an LG, Sony, or Samsung LED TV is superior to any other display technology. (Ok, I was impressed with the color and viewing angle on the 20+-inch OLED teaser Sony had hidden in a back room, but that’s still several years away from the mainstream especially when it comes to competing on size.) Also, for the moment, there really isn’t enough 3D content to make me want to purchase a TV based on its 3D capability (plus I’d have to add a 3D- Blu Ray device, and several pairs of high tech 3D glasses to the purchase.) Hopefully, with the success of 3D movies such as Avatar (which grossed over 1 Billion dollars worldwide in just a few weeks!) that will change over the next few years. But for now, I think I’ll wait till after this year’s Infocomm 2010 show to see what the other manufacturers bring out on the 3D LED front, then save up for next Christmas’s big screen for the family. Oh yeah, they want one too!

Also, check out the official CES video podcast interview done by Sarah Myers on day two of the show with yours truly:

I’m not sure what’s scarier:  facing an 8 foot White Tip Reef Shark from three feet away or figuring out what to pack for a two week long expedition that included everything from diving on the Great Barrier Reef to hiking through the jungles in the Wet Tropics of Queensland. My challenge, when it came to luggage, was that I was a one man show, and everything I packed I had to personally truck to the airport, in between connecting international and puddle-jumper flights at several airports, on to dive boats, and into hotels lacking elevators or even bellhops. On top of that, my goal was to minimize extra baggage charges, since the expedition had a UN budget that was more of an honorarium than a professional fee for the job I tackled.

Fortunately, I did my homework and researched exactly the baggage size and weight restrictions from each airline I would use. Further research and contacts at several consumer electronics companies helped me gather camera, computer, storage, lighting, communications, and GPS equipment that was light weight and compact. In the end, I found myself either carrying or rolling everything I needed, a minor miracle of technology when you consider that I had was able to take thousands of photographs and hundreds of HD videos underwater and above during the expedition, had no assistant to carry my gear, and didn’t incur any extra baggage fees along the way! I also somehow avoided any pulled muscles or a hernia.

Even two years ago I couldn’t have pulled it off because the equipment I needed to do both still and HD recording didn’t exist. But due to the compact size and extraordinary capabilities of the Panasonic Lumix GH1, I was able to combine both media capabilities into one camera (with an underwater housing and lighting system that was about the smallest ever put together for an interchangeable lens system. Next on the list was a lightweight, super-powerful Sony V-series laptop, pocket-sized 500 GB external hard drives from Western Digital, and a variety of other products I’ll list shortly.

I wanted to keep most of my camera and electronics gear with me at all times, so I got my hands on a Tenba Universal Rolling Photo/laptop case (my review of this case appeared in the Dec. issue of Professional Photography magazine) and packed it to the hilt with the equipment shown in the following photo:

While visiting the Texas Instruments DLP booth at the Infocomm 2009 show, I spotted a computer display running DLP’s Total Cost of Ownership Calculator program. It looked similar to the active online version, so I decided to run an ownership cost analysis between two similar-priced and Lumens-rated projectors, the Infocus IN2104 (2500 lumen claimed brightness) and the Epson Powerlite EMP-1715 (2200 lumens). Before starting, I noticed that the primary data fields in the display program were set to a typical school district’s smart board scenario: buy 100 units, use them for seven years, run them five hours a day, 5 days per week, and 43 weeks per year. I went with that and then selected the model numbers from the dropdown. Next, I hit calculate  and within seconds the display revealed that I would save an incredible $164,000 in only 7 years if I bought the Infocus models. WOW!! That’s three times as much as the original cost of purchasing 100 Epson models! But how on earth could anyone save so much? And why didn’t I have to fill in all the additional fields regarding bulb life, bulb cost, labor cost, etc., before the computer calculated the savings? (Usually, when you don’t fill those in on the TCO online version, windows pop up with suggestions for the amounts to fill in.)

There was obviously something wrong with this display. First, in the final tally and spec windows (upper right corner in the image above), the Powerlite 1715 was replaced by the Powerlite 83+, possibly for reasons that had to do with the discontinued status of the 1715 model. That was harmless enough, but the spec lists showed a Standard Lamp Life of 3000 hours for both the IN2104 projector and the Epson Powerlite 83+, even though Infocus claims 2000 hours in its brochures (with 3000 hours achievable in economy mode). That lamp-life figure is used to predict the cost of lamp replacement over time, so using 3000 hours skews the results in DLP’s favor. Plus, the program automatically tacked on $1,500 per Epson unit for filter cleaning over the seven year period, $32 each for filters, and the maintenance costs for all 100 Epson projectors. The final came to $153,200! Meanwhile, on the Infocus side, there were no maintenance or filter costs, yet there was a price of $55,000 for the replacement & labor cost of bulbs (based on 3000 hrs per bulb). But that wasn’t right either, as the program failed to tally the cost of bulb replacement and labor for the Epson units. Had it done so, the program would have calculated at least $50,000 higher savings for choosing the Infocus units.

It took some after-hours research to figure out how these final costs were generated, but fortunately I had the online version of the DLP TCO to help me out. For cleaning and replacement cost, it appears the show display program input replacing a filter every 2500 hours, cleaning the filter every 100 hours of use, and labor costs of $20 per hour (to clean only 2 filters per hour). That works out to over $22,000 a year just to clean the filters on 100 projectors!  Perhaps there are some places in the world where dust blows constantly through open classroom or boardrooms, requiring filter cleaning every 100 hours (or once a month in this case). However, there’s no mention of 100 hour intervals between cleanings in the Powerlite 1715c or 83+manuals, despite what the DLP booth rep told me the 100-hour figure was based on. Next, is $20 per hour to clean two 3LCD projector filters per hour a reasonable figure (or a tongue-twister)? Even if the projectors are mounted overhead it only takes a few seconds (or a minute if you’re really working the clock) to clean or even replace a filter. The proof is in the video:

How easy is it to clean or replace a filter in a 3LCD projector? Check out the video.

Meanwhile, you can’t even enter filter costs or labor amounts in those fields on the DLP side of the calculator, since most DLP models boast Filter-Free designs. But the design logic for Filter-Free projectors was built on claims by TI and its DLP partners that their projectors have Sealed Optics that keep out the dust. (I’ve personally sat through dozens of presentations over the last year where the sealed optic feature was touted in DLP projectors, while the need for dust filters in 3LCD projectors was ridiculed for added costs and inconvenience.) However, at this year’s Infocomm show, there wasn’t a single mention of sealed optics in any DLP presentation or literature, and only a vague mention of semi-sealed optics in a press release for a new Mitsubishi DLP projector. And as I wrote this, I could only find one mention of sealed optics on any DLP partner site, and that was Dell’s:

The mystery behind this sudden disappearing act was cleared up at the 3LCD booth. Apparently, Epson challenged Texas Instruments on the fact that it couldn’t find sealed optics in DLP projectors. To support this challenge, a display at the 3LCD booth showed the results from an independent lab’s dust test of DLP projectors. Photos clearly illustrated how dust accumulated on the projector bulb, condensing lens, color wheel, and mirror assemblies (all part of the optical path) as well as the circuit boards within the unit. There were also examples of image degradation caused by dust, as well as data showing that dust accumulation decreases Lumens output significantly and shortens bulb life. Soon after that challenge began, claims for sealed optics disappeared from the DLP website and most other partner  sites.

A few weeks after the show (on July 9, 2009) the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureau (NAD) found that TI was wrong to claim that its DLP projectors contained a sealed optical system, and TI agreed to remove mentions of sealed optics. This is an excerpt from that finding:
“The challenger (Epson) objected to the advertiser’s (TI) claims that its projectors have a completely enclosed optical system, which is sealed in a protective tube from lamp to lens. It also objected to the message that because DLP-based projectors features such a system, they are impenetrable to dust, which results in certain performance and cost of ownership advantages over 3LCD-based projectors. The challenger noted that these claims not only appear in advertising published by the advertiser, but they have also been adopted and widely disseminated by the projector manufacturers that use the technology.

In response to NAD’s inquiry, the advertiser asserted that it has discontinued, and will cease dissemination of, materials with claims concerning or visually depicting DLP-based projectors as completely enclosed and completely sealed as well as completely free from or unaffected by dust.

Further, the advertiser said it will no longer use claims that DLP-based projectors have sealed optics or enclosed optics or are completely free from or unaffected by dust.The advertiser noted that it is in the process of revising its DLP sales brochures and online advertising to reflect these changes, and that these revisions should be completed soon. It also stated that it has permanently discontinued the animation showing how dust affects LCD and DLP projectors, and the portion of the video showing the same, from its Website.”

I don’t like being mislead by false product claims. But what else can you call it? Imagine if Canon or Nikon sold “optically sealed” lenses or compact cameras that easily allowed dust to enter and accumulate? They’d be sued left and right.
Now that we know that DLP projectors are actually semi-sealed and open to dust,  the 10-million dollar question is: How can DLP manufacturers continue to claim that their  ”filter-free” designs provide lower maintenance costs over the life of the projector if dust accumulation shortens bulb life and creates image-quality problems? And how can you come out ahead on Total Cost Of Ownership with minor filter cleaning and replacement cost savings if you shorten bulb life and substantially increase the total cost for new bulbs? (Projector bulbs cost $300-$400 each, dust filters about $12!) It’s not easy, unless you believe the instructions that pop up on the TCO calculator when you fail to input the cost of cleaning labor for 3LCD projectors:

Apparently, there are quite a few purchasing agents in school districts around the country  who do believe that it costs $15-30 an hour to clean two filters per hour, and a few actually based huge (in one case, 2,000 units!) purchases on the results of the TCO calculator (See the DLP Case Studies.) However, given the recent revelation about “sealed-optics” and potential for short lived bulbs (not to mention image quality degradation), I wonder if any of those buyers will be asking for their money back? Or will they still think they got the deal based on yet another questionable cost added to the tally? This one called Color Decay, and described as follows in the TCO Calculator:

When I ran the booth version of the TCO calculator, it added $735 per Epson projector for the repair of LCD panel Color Decay (for a total of $73,500 for 100 units). That’s more to replace faded 3LCD panels than you’d spend on new projectors.  Where did this figure come from? Again, with help from  the online version, I discovered that the $73,500 was based on repairing the LCD panels in every one of those 3LCD projectors after only 2000 hours of use—even before it’s time to replace your first bulb at 3000 hours! Considering the 7525 hours of use in this scenario, that would mean that you’d spend nearly $200 every 2000 hours to repair faded LCD panels. If there was any truth to this repair cost, I can guarantee that thousands of owners of 3LCD projectors would be cursing and swearing at the manufacturers for making and selling defective products. Where is the evidence to support this 2000-hour self destruct sequence, or the extravagent repair costs? The only solid links I found to the existence of Color Decay in modern 3LCD projectors dates back to DLP-sponsored studies done using single-panel LCD projectors in 2002 and 2003. And after a close read, those tests only proved to me that if you ran old-model LCD projectors 24/7 for several months at a time, overheating might damage an LCD panel and not a single-chip DLP imager. If Color Decay does exist in modern 3LCD projectors, then TI should prove it.

By the way, many of the latest 3LCD projectors feature E-TORL lamps with bulb life ranging from 4,000 to 6,000 hours in standard (full) brightness, while the best single-chip DLP models max out at 3,000 hours, with 4000 in low (or ECO) modes. But if you compare those models using the online TCO calculator, or put in reasonable costs for replacing bulbs or cleaning filters with any competitive pair, something odd happens to the results in the TCO calculator. It tells you that you would save $0 if you purchased the 3LCD model, and not a negative number based on the total costs actually calculated on another line. (Also note that bulb replacement is the biggest cost overall.) That’s not fair, is it? If TI wants to keep calling this thing a Total Cost Of Ownership calculator, why doesn’t it work in both directions? Perhaps a better meaning for TCO would be Total Concoction Online.

This year’s Infocomm 2009 Trade Show in Orlando, Florida wasn’t nearly as exciting for me as last year’s show in Las Vegas. I could blame it on the location (Orlando? BOOORING!) and the flattened economy (both obvious contributors to lower attendance). But could it also have been that last year I was a wide-eyed newcomer to a show that tries to cover everything from professional audio equipment to “Minority Report” style display technologies?

This year’s show certainly boasted a greater assortment of thin, large screen TVs, some of which featured high resolution beyond the once leading edge 1080P format (until you see an image on a 6 or 8 Megapixel, 56-inch screen you won’t be able to imagine how gorgeous it looks. But if you have to ask how much it costs, it’s not for you!) Video display wall technology also jumped up several notches, with new LED backlit displays adding color way beyond NTSC standards. And everywhere I turned the big AV players had multiple large screen monitors grouped together to display extremely high resolution (or wide format) photographs, CAD drawings, and art work.


With video walls, you could still see the narrow seams in between monitors if you look closely, but projector displays used a combination software/hardware solution from Scalable Display Technology to seamlessly stitch multiple images into one. I’m still dizzy from the flight simulator walls that showcased this technology, and can’t wait till it becomes more affordable.

Next, there was an abundance of new 3D displays from HDTV manufacturers such as Mitsubishi, and even a few DLP-projector manufacturers. Most of these displays required the use of special glasses to sync the right and left stereo pair images, but using these glasses provided a truly remarkable 3D experience. (Forget using those crappy old paper and plastic 3D glasses, that’s not even close to the new 3D experience.) But the real challenge will be providing enough quality content to convince 3D enabled HDTVs to purchase multiple pairs of 3D glasses. While there are some auto-stereo monitors on the market that don’t need glasses, they’re still too small for home theater use, and the viewing angle is very limited.

Last year there was a lot of hoopla about the arrival of pico projectors, and this year there were more units on display. However, most of the discussion about those small devices centered on slightly increased Lumens ratings, and the entry of LCOS-based imaging engines with LED light source, where where once single-chip DLP and LED ruled. From my perspective, pico projectors don’t offer enough brightness (or overall value) to be commercially competitive with current projectors, whether DLP or 3LCD based. However, I predict we’ll see pico projection technology sneaking into a wide variety of devices in the next year, from minivan ceilings to portable digital cameras (who needs a big LCD monitor when you can project your photos on the floor, wall, or ceiling?)

Predictions for LED lights eventually replacing the current bulbs used in the projectors continued, mostly by the manufacturers of LED (such as Phlatlight) and the DLP camp. But as I mentioned, the Lumens output isn’t yet up to par, even though LED lights do boast much longer life spans on the order of 10,000 to 20,000 hours or more. Last year, I heard a DLP presentation claiming that the upcoming wave of 3-LED-based DLP units would be capable of displaying billions of colors, with as many as 200 trillions someday. I argued that claim, (and might be for several years to come if the same folks who once claimed sealed optics are writing the copy on 3-LED color.) This year, I heard claims for billions of colors in a shipping product at the DLP booth, but the fact is there is no such thing as billions of colors and there never will be. (Color scientists and opticians agree—the human visual system is only capable of discerning about 12 million colors. Perhaps a few of us can see the 16.7 million colors in a top-grade 24-bit monitor or TV, but no one can rightfully claim a display system with billions or trillions of colors.)

Upon close inspection of the 3-LED projector images being shown, I noticed there were lots of oversaturated colors, the likes of which could never be created by a single chip DLP projector (but easily within the realm of a 3LCD projector). I didn’t hear the rep boast of how the 3-LED projector brightness had improved from 400 Lumens in 2008 to 1100 Lumens just one year (a significant improvement), or how using 3 primary color LED’s had dramatically improved the color gamut and quality over the use of a multi-color wheel (wait, that would sound like a 3LCD presentation!). Instead, both the DLP and Phlatlight reps claimed (in two different presentations) that a focus group had agreed the 3-LED projector on display produced a “perceived” brightness of nearly 2100 lumens, nearly a 1000 lumens more than its tested Lumens rating! Neither could explain why a focus group came to that conclusion, other than to suggest it had to do with the perception of bolder colors on the screen (PS: Not a scientific explanation by any means). But I figured the focus group might have come to that conclusion after it compared the output from a single-chip DLP projector (with a claimed 2200 Lumens output, and a tested color light output closer to 1000 lumens) to the actual 1100 Lumens rating of the 3-LED projector.

Background голова болит секс голова болит секс : As a photographer, videographer, and image-quality expert, I’m not a big fan of single-chip DLP projectors. I have yet to find (or test) a single-chip DLP projector that can match the color gamut and overall image quality of a similar-priced 3LCD projector. And as a color scientist, I can disprove the DLP claim that projecting white light through a high speed, spinning color wheel containing subtractive primary colors (such as M, C, Y) in addition to R, G, B creates superior color accuracy and gamut to a 3LCD projector. Many DLP projectors I’ve tested don’t live up to their claimed lumens either, coming in at 20-30% lower even in their bright modes. Sure, if you set a DLP projector to its Film, Photo, or Video modes (instead of Bright mode), image quality and color improves dramatically, but projector brightness often drops in half compared to 3LCD projectors with similar Lumens specs. Lastly, I’m also bothered by rainbow effects that plague single-chip DLP projectors, especially when viewing b&w photos, high contrast scenes, and a wide variety of movies. That said, 3-chip DLP units are in a different league altogether when it comes to image quality, but they’re also 10X the cost of single-chip units. And despite the claims on the DLP website, they are not capable of displaying 35 trillion colors. What they apparently meant to say, and I hope somebody at TI is listening, is that a 3-chip DLP projector may be capable of forming 12 million to 16.7- million visible colors using up to 35 Trillion color data combinations. After all, by definition color is a human visual experience, and if no human can tell the difference between two “color data combinations” then there is really only one true color present.

How objective are the camera tests you read in magazines and on web sites? That usually depends on the design of the tests, the accuracy of the test data, and the ability of the editor or lab assistant to interpret the test data. This last fact causes the most problems, especially when “expert” evaluators have little background in color science, optics, lighting, imaging processing, or even as working photographers. (A dead giveaway? If a magazine or web site fails to post biographic information on its editors and writers, it’s likely they want to hide a lack of experience or schooling.) For a time, these reviewers get by with a mix of writing skills and blarney, relying heavily on the old adage: a one-eyed man can always lead the blind!!

Of course, objectivity can also suffer when spineless magazine editors “adjust” product reviews to placate advertisers who threaten to pull the $$ plug if anything bad is written about their products. That’s a more likely scenario these days among print publications facing rising costs and dwindling ad revenue, but even websites that claim to have “higher Ethics” than their magazine competitors bow to financial pressure behind the scenes.

For more commentary on this topic, listen to the November 22, 2008 McNamara Report segment on Inside Digital Photo (slide to the 22min 30sec mark for that segment);

Savvy photographers usually catch on to both scenarios sooner or later, and search elsewhere for their information or check several sources before making a purchasing decision. For those reasons I think the new DxOMark.com website will be a useful tool and a hit among serious photographers. On this site you’ll find in-depth analysis and test data derived from the RAW files produced by nearly every major digital SLR, as well as a few popular compacts and new medium format models. Data includes color accuracy, noise and dynamic range at a variety of ISOs, true ISO sensitivity, low-light ISO performance, and an umbrella DxOMark Sensor rating. There are several interactive tools and graphs that make side-by-side comparisons between a variety of cameras easier than ever. Plus, if you’re a student of digital photography, you will find the library of articles located in the Technology section invaluable resources.

By now you’ve probably heard of DxO, a French company behind the DxOMark.com site that’s known for its popular DxO Optics Pro software. This software is sold with specific support for the camera and lens combinations you own, and performs a variety of complex image processing functions on a DSLR’s RAW file, including distortion correction, noise reduction, exposure optimization, and dust removal. However, you may not be familiar with DxO Analyzer 3.0 test software since it’s not sold to the general public or directly to photographers. Instead, DxO Analyzer 3.0 software and DxO-designed test targets are used by several US-based and International photo magazines, as well as a number of online photo sites, to provide camera and lens test data that is later interpreted by reviewers. Nearly every camera manufacturer also uses DxO Analyzer at some point during the product development cycle to help fine tune image quality.

I can personally vouch for the usefulness of data provided by DxO Analyzer 3.0, as it was part of the test equipment I certified for use in the Popular Photography test lab while I was the magazine’s Executive Technology Editor. In that lab, I used it to help determine lens distortion, chromatic aberration, and light falloff. It was also used to test camera noise levels at a wide variety of ISOs and gray-scale levels. The software’s “Blur rating” is used by a variety of competitors to determine lens sharpness (although it’s not an accurate tool for that use). On the other hand, the Blur Rating is still used in the Pop Photo Lab to determine the efficiency of the image stabilization systems built into a lens or camera body. DxO Analyzer 3.0 could also be used to determine the color accuracy, base ISO, and dynamic range of a camera, but this information either never made its way into Pop test report charts or was provided by other test methods.

While DxOMark.com provides a universal, and extremely useful, tool for comparing the data culled from the RAW files of the most popular DSLRs and medium format cameras, as well as in depth information about camera sensors, it shouldn’t be viewed as the final word. That’s because there is more to a camera than RAW file test data, (including metering and AF performance, handling, and several other parameters) and even RAW camera data is open to interpretation–not only to reviewers trying to determine which camera offers the most for the money, but to different RAW converter algorithms used to develop the data.

If there is a weakness to the data provided on DxOMark.com, it revolves around the “special sauce” that individual manufacturers such as Canon and Nikon claim they include in their RAW conversion software to get the most out of their respective camera’s RAW capture. My extensive experience with RAW conversion utilities has shown that all RAW converters are not created equal–and if DxO Analyzer 3.0 doesn’t access all of Nikon’s “special sauce” it may help to explain why the Dynamic Range rating for the Nikon D90 at DxOmark.com is just slightly higher than the Dynamic Range rating for the Nikon D3 (12.5 vs 12.3, see screen grab below). My experience shooting with both cameras refutes that finding, while I agree with the overall DxOMark Sensor Ratings given for both cameras (the D90: 72.6, the D3: 80.6).

The older full-frame Canon EOS 5D also has a lower Dynamic Range rating than the new EOS 50D with its APS-sized sensor, but that difference could be explained by the advances in sensor technology over a two-year span. Fortunately, controversial ratings such as these are few and far between on this site, and I’d wager that there are far fewer conflicts of logic to be found in the pages of DxOMark.com than there are in the pages of many “venerable” magazines and web sites. Take some time to read the articles and white papers on the site in order to understand the rating system, and I think you’ll find the new DxOMark.com website to be an invaluable tool when it comes to choosing your next digital camera. Now if only the same folks behind DxOMark.com could do the same for printers, scanners, projectors, HDTVs, and memory cards, we’d all be in agreement. Right….

I love making my own prints from the photos I shoot. It doesn’t matter if the original photos come from digital cameras or from film scans, I want to control the process from end to end in order to produce a work of art that represents my vision and not a lab technician’s (or worse–a minilab’s auto-balancing filter.) There have been too many times when I received prints back from a lab that had color and contrast that didn’t come close to the actual colors and contrast captured by the camera. In fact, the thrill I felt when I made my first photo print (in color, by the way, using a Kodak Ektaflex printing system I set up in my bedroom) got me seriously hooked on this photography thing that wound up becoming my career. Now, many years and thousands of prints later, I still get a kick out of printing. But much has changed in that time.

Before decent ink jet printers arrived on the scene, I spent more than 1,000 hours in darkrooms mastering the craft of “silver-halide” printing in both color and black and white mediums. The chemical darkroom was fun while it lasted, but I’m never going back. For starters, I don’t miss inhaling strange stop bath and fixer fumes (although the possible damage done might explain some aspects of my personality), nor to I miss the setup and clean up routines which often lasted as long as the printing session. Most importantly, I have come to prefer the expanded color gamut, paper surface and material variety, display longevity, and precise control I get from modern ink jet printing systems compared to silver halide printing.

However, having reviewed dozens of ink jet, dye sub, and other types of digital printers over the last 18 years, I know what works and what doesn’t–at least for me. When it comes to photo-quality printers, I’m picky–and usually gravitated towards the 13×19-inch or larger models. However, I don’t always need super-sized print output, and occasionally I find myself popping out 4×6 prints as fast as I can to hand off to a visiting relative or friend, or even printing a color document (for black and white document printing, nothing is economical or as fast as a sub-$100 laser printer.) That’s why I love the new Epson Artisan 800 All-in-One (AiO) printer ($299).

As its name implies, Epson’s Artisan 800 AiO does more than make prints. It can also copy color or black and white documents (up to 40 at a time via the document feeder), fix up faded and damaged photos, scan photos and art, fax in color or b&w, and even print directly onto coated CD and DVD disc. In addition, the printer offers Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and LAN networking connections for attaching to home or office networks and to camera phones and other portable devices. The Artisan 800 is loaded with easy to use image enhancing features that can produce brilliant prints and expand the capabilities of your home digital darkroom. By giving you control over the final output in addition to expanded gamut and higher color accuracy, I think the resulting prints will rival or exceed the image quality of prints made in silver-halide based minilabs, plus the ability to print on various media (including CD and DVDs) make this AiO one of the best choices around for serious photographers on a budget, or creative artists who want to do more with their images or art.

For more analysis on the Artisan 800 features, listen to the October 11, 2008 McNamara Report segment on Inside Digital Photo (slide to the 19min 45sec mark for that segment);

And for additional comparisons on the Artisan 800 features versus its competition, read my Selling Tips column in Photo Industry Reporter.

Every two years the giant Photokina Trade Show takes place in Cologne, Germany. Imagine a trade show where European picture frame manufacturers fill up a floor larger than a football field, consumer electronics (TVs, home theater, etc) has its own building, and where it usually takes several days just to figure out where the bath rooms are located–and you’ll get an idea of how huge the Photokina show is. I’ve attended this show since the late 1990′s, and usually come back with more than enough new material to write about as well as interesting photos of the show, city, and night life.

Photo of bridge across the Rhine and the DOM Cathedral taken from the Photokina Show side of the river in 2006. Camera: Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2 in night scenery mode. 4 sec at f/4.

On the other hand, I also returned with a wicked cold, the flu, and overall exhaustion from the travel (September weather in Cologne is typically blah!). Last time I went, I had to wonder if the show was worth the hassle, given the fact that I already had been given sneak peeks at nearly every product of importance introduced at the show, and the information on those I hadn’t seen was available on the internet within 24 hours. That was even before the dollar took a nose dive against the EURO and hotel prices skyrocketed to over $500 a day (within 5 miles of the show.)

The 21.1MP Full-frame Canon EOS 5D Mark II with unique 1080i HD movie recording mode gets my award for top intro at Photokina 2008. But I saw it the week before, so why travel to Germany?

This year, given that my expenses weren’t being covered by a major publication or news organization, I decided to miss the show. Looks like I made the right choice, too. By the time Photokina kicked off on the 23rd of September, I’d been briefed on 90% of the hot products that debuted at the show. The only real surprises were the Leica S2, a super-expensive medium-format digital Hassalblads, and a few Foveon-based cameras by Sigma. Of course, I have to admit that I missed some of the great parties, unusual exhibitions, and lack of inhibitions displayed by fellow journalists during afterhour beer hall visits), but I also didn’t have to put up with lousy weather, crushing crowds, transportation delays, and questionable ingredients in the sausages being sold on corners. If I wanted those, I could have hopped on a train to NYC!
So Scott Shepard and I decided to cover the news and new products from show from the comfort of our own turf in an extended version of the McNamara Report that aired during Photokina:

To listen to the Sept. 27 segment of the McNamara Report on Inside Digital Photo click on the play button;

After the show, while everyone who did go was recovering from jet lag, colds, and exhaustion after the show, I was feeling fine for a change. Now I’m wondering if I can do the same thing during that other GIANT nightmare of a show called CES in January. Wait! I like going to that show!

Hear my analysis on Inside Digital Photo’s August 23, 2008 Radio Program (slide forward to the 11:20 min mark to get straight to the report on this topic):

It happened again, just when most photographers had been lulled into thinking we had seen the last new RAW file format. But noooo! Nikon surprised us by giving birth to a new one called .NRW that’s found exclusively in the high-level COOLPIX P6000 (This hot $500 compact boasts a 13.5MP CCD, 28-112mm f/2.7-5.9 stabilized zoom lens, built-in GPS, and up to ISO 6400.) Unfortunately, the Nikon engineers forgot something when they created this new RAW format—and it’s called Mac compatibility! Guess we should have seen that coming with a file extension called .NRW (Nikon Raw Windows).
So while photographers with PC’s running Microsoft Vista (and nothing prior to Vista) will be able to open and adjust .NRW files, the rest of the world is out of luck—unless popular RAW workflow programs like Apple’s Aperture, Adobe RAW converter, and Adobe’s Lightroom come to the rescue as they have in the past.

I really don’t expect the development teams at Apple to fret over this new format. After all, few professional photographers–the core base of Aperture users–will be rushing out to get the P6000. And with the plugin architecture of Aperture I would expect a third party (perhaps even Microsoft? Nah!) to develop a plugin that could convert .NRW files into something Aperture and other Mac-based imaging programs could handle.

Funny thing about the Coolpix P6000 though. It has some incredible features and advanced technologies that are being overlooked by the vast majority of the press reports I’ve seen due to the controversy of the Windows RAW format.  For a compact camera, it offers a great deal, including a dedicated hotshoe that works with Nikon’s advanced flash system, a sharper LCD monitor than just about any other camera in its class, and built in GPS for tagging photos by location.

To listen to this topic discussed on the Inside Digital Photo show, Aug. 9, 2008, click the play button:

High-end color calibration and profiling tools used to cost a pretty penny and required a learning curve that few photographers had time to deal with. But new calibration and profiling tools such as the X-Rite Colormunki Photo ($449 street) and DataColor’s Spyder3Studio ($600 street) are available for less than a quality 13×19-inch printer or 24-inch monitor. These tools can create profiles for monitors, printers, and digital projectors, they’re portable, easier to use than ever, and will pay for themselves in ink and paper savings in no time–especially if you make a lot of prints. But which is the best choice for your work flow and color demands?

I would recommend the X-Rite Colormunki Photo if you plan to make lots of printer and paper profiles, grab spot colors, and only have a few computers to calibrate. It’s faster at profiling prints (you can slide it across several patches in a single move-see photo below), slightly more accurate on monitor profiles, and portable enough for making quick spot color readings. Otherwise, its limited license (which allows for loading on only 3 computers) is a pain, especially for any pro photographer who has a home computer, laptop, and more than one computer in his or her studio. 

On the other hand, I gotta hand it to Datacolor: The metal case for the Spyder3Studio is Sweet! Plus this system includes two color measurement devices, one for monitor and projector calibration and profiling, and one for creating printer profiles. Both of the Spyder devices are colorimeters, even though the print device is called a spectro-colorimeter in the literature. It includes easy-to-use setup instructions and calibration programs that work on an unlimited number of Mac and PCs. Print profiling takes longer to achieve with the Spyder3Suite than the Colormunki, and results were nearly as accurate. However, it’s not as easy to use the print measuring device on spot colors (or fabrics) as it is with the Colormunki.