Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: The next crop of cameras is coming down the chute  (Read 34993 times)
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #20 on: October 08, 2011, 06:44:11 AM »
ReplyReply

So if you set an extra -1 or -1.5 stop exposure compensation (underexpose) on all your shots with a good digital sensor, would they not match negative film for highlight range? The only question then is whether they at least match the film S/N in the mid-tones and shadows. I suspect they would, even with the underexposure handicap.

As Bernard says, this is basically what many of the digital backs are set up to do.

Being in a position to underexpose also helps with things like camera shake (use a faster shutter speed) or increasing DOF (use a smaller aperture).

Ray

No its not, because the s-slope of film has less linear part than digital and hence highlight compression doesn't start at the same point but earlier. It will reduce highlights by a fraction of a stop the magnitude of which (how much of a fraction), depends on the projection "equivalent to linear" depending on which part of the S-slope you are, it will reduce "mids" by 1 stop which is on the linear part of the S-slope and it will "kill" "lows" to more than a stop because of the same reason as "highs". Please note that I would prefer to avoid a conversation with you, for reasons you already know. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr 
Logged
ondebanks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 833



« Reply #21 on: October 08, 2011, 08:04:42 AM »
ReplyReply

No its not, because the s-slope of film has less linear part than digital and hence highlight compression doesn't start at the same point but earlier. It will reduce highlights by a fraction of a stop the magnitude of which (how much of a fraction), depends on the projection "equivalent to linear" depending on which part of the S-slope you are, it will reduce "mids" by 1 stop which is on the linear part of the S-slope and it will "kill" "lows" to more than a stop because of the same reason as "highs". 

But one can apply an S-curve of any desired shape in software afterwards - in fact that's what RAW converters do, to varying degrees.

One can even straighten out the S-curve response of film and make it linear, if desired - that's how astronomers made linear calibrated photometric flux measurements from photographic plates, for nearly a century.

The point being, how the dynamic range is rendered can be freely adjusted. What matters is how much dynamic range is captured in the first place.

Please note that I would prefer to avoid a conversation with you, for reasons you already know. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

What, because of the CCD vs CMOS thread? Come on, get over it. I have.

Ray
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4024



« Reply #22 on: October 08, 2011, 08:07:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Film has much greater DR in the highlights, I guess, while with digital there is a hard highlight cut off when the sensor wells are full.

Edmund

But one can apply an S-curve of any desired shape in software afterwards - in fact that's what RAW converters do, to varying degrees.

One can even straighten out the S-curve response of film and make it linear, if desired - that's how astronomers made linear calibrated photometric flux measurements from photographic plates, for nearly a century.

The point being, how the dynamic range is rendered can be freely adjusted. What matters is how much dynamic range is captured in the first place.

What, because of the CCD vs CMOS thread? Come on, get over it. I have.

Ray
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7403


WWW
« Reply #23 on: October 08, 2011, 08:45:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Perhaps not a greater DR but a nicer rendition?

Best Regards
Erik
Film has much greater DR in the highlights, I guess, while with digital there is a hard highlight cut off when the sensor wells are full.

Edmund

 Smiley Smiley
Logged

fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #24 on: October 08, 2011, 08:59:33 AM »
ReplyReply

But one can apply an S-curve of any desired shape in software afterwards - in fact that's what RAW converters do, to varying degrees.

One can even straighten out the S-curve response of film and make it linear, if desired - that's how astronomers made linear calibrated photometric flux measurements from photographic plates, for nearly a century.

The point being, how the dynamic range is rendered can be freely adjusted. What matters is how much dynamic range is captured in the first place.

What, because of the CCD vs CMOS thread? Come on, get over it. I have.

Ray
1. You can't create info that doesn't exist(!),  and you can't magnify existing info without distorting them. 2. They knew the project and did set up equipment for the process, NOT RELEVANT what so ever and I don't get over anything if you won't apologize for calling me an ignorant that confused long exposure with high ISO performance. OUT unless you do (apologize).  Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4024



« Reply #25 on: October 08, 2011, 09:19:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Perhaps not a greater DR but a nicer rendition?

Best Regards
Erik

If it's a digital single image I guess DR is locked and rendition and maybe hilite recovery s the only thing one can wok on.

Certain sensors eg. 5D2 seem to have an electronic shutter and these might be run in a way to generate HDR shots. I'd expect this kind of distinguishing feature to be introduced soon, when adding megapixels stops being a key sales aid.

Edmund

Logged
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #26 on: October 08, 2011, 09:20:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Perhaps not a greater DR but a nicer rendition?

Best Regards
Erik
Erik, "a great photographer is the one that can "see" the PHOTOGRAPH before he even captures it: C.Bresson" + "A photograph is only the printed thing on paper: Me and many others". Which means that a photograph originates in capturing and the process is already known to the photographer, anything else is playing with cameras and process but it has nothing to do with PHOTOGRAPHY, it may be "world advancement", "photography", "aesthetics", "graphics", "technique" or whatever ...you name it! But it certainly has nothing to do with PHOTOGRAPHY no matter of how many support one or the other "opinion". Art was never "democratical"  from majority POV and it will never be, history and survival through time is the only judgment for it! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7403


WWW
« Reply #27 on: October 08, 2011, 09:26:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Sorry,

I don't understand what you mean. We were discussing DR, were we not?! Negative film has a shoulder, so it's response is not linear with increasing exposure. So it may render specular highlights more pleasantly.

Best regards
Erik

Erik, "a great photographer is the one that can "see" the PHOTOGRAPH before he even captures it: C.Bresson" + "A photograph is only the printed thing on paper: Me and many others". Which means that a photograph originates in capturing and the process is already known to the photographer, anything else is playing with cameras and process but it has nothing to do with PHOTOGRAPHY, it may be "world advancement", "photography", "aesthetics", "graphics", "technique" or whatever ...you name it! But it certainly has nothing to do with PHOTOGRAPHY no matter of how many support one or the other "opinion". Art was never "democratical"  from majority POV and it will never be, history and survival through time is the only judgment for it! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Logged

ondebanks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 833



« Reply #28 on: October 08, 2011, 10:08:53 AM »
ReplyReply

1. You can't create info that doesn't exist(!), 

Exactly - which is why I said "What matters is how much dynamic range is captured in the first place."

and you can't magnify existing info without distorting them.

Applying an S-curve to linear digital data has the opposite effect; it compresses the DR at either end, so more input levels are squeezed (demagnified, if you will) into fewer output levels. 

Do the reverse process, to linearize scanned film, and yeah, the stretching out of those levels gives you pretty nasty S/N. I obviously don't recommend this; I only remark that such manipulations can be done.

2. They knew the project and did set up equipment for the process, NOT RELEVANT what so ever

It is relevant because it illustrates that the effect of the curve shape can be changed at will - even with film. If I hadn't given that concrete example, someone would probably have (rightly) challenged me to back up my statement with evidence.

and I don't get over anything if you won't apologize for calling me an ignorant that confused long exposure with high ISO performance. OUT unless you do (apologize).  Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

OK, at last you are finally telling me why you got so mad. I apologize for saying that you confused long exposure with high ISO performance. It was an honest mis-interpretation of your post, and there was no ill intent.

But I challenge you to show me any place in the thread where I called you "an ignorant". I certainly did not.

Ray
Logged
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #29 on: October 08, 2011, 11:07:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Exactly - which is why I said "What matters is how much dynamic range is captured in the first place."

Applying an S-curve to linear digital data has the opposite effect; it compresses the DR at either end, so more input levels are squeezed (demagnified, if you will) into fewer output levels. 

Do the reverse process, to linearize scanned film, and yeah, the stretching out of those levels gives you pretty nasty S/N. I obviously don't recommend this; I only remark that such manipulations can be done.

It is relevant because it illustrates that the effect of the curve shape can be changed at will - even with film. If I hadn't given that concrete example, someone would probably have (rightly) challenged me to back up my statement with evidence.

OK, at last you are finally telling me why you got so mad. I apologize for saying that you confused long exposure with high ISO performance. It was an honest mis-interpretation of your post, and there was no ill intent.

But I challenge you to show me any place in the thread where I called you "an ignorant". I certainly did not.

Ray

OK! Now we can be friends again! "Ignorant" is not a word you used it is an obvious result to characterize anyone that would confuse "long exposure" with high "iso performance" as you presented me.
1. The DR captured in digital is less in the highlights, not in magnitude, but the actual HLDR because it has less compression (ie film records more in less HL range), the rest which is retained (at the moment) with analog, is lost ...so its nothing left in digital to recover (yet), in the "lowlights", digital may be considered comparable or better (depending of how much noise is acceptable from the photographer) but because the total DR range is more (or less, or equivalent, depending on the noise criterion) it doesn't mean that you can move it by simply underexposing because the S-slope curves don't much and since S-slope is not linear, underexposing will create the problems earlier quoted and unnatural image. Even more, depending on the highlights needed to be recovered, some (much?) of it will still be left left out. I don't deny that are people that consider lowlights as important as highlights, but I don't (!) and most of the great photographers of the previous century didn't, if I was to judge importance, I would say "1 stop of HL for 2 stops of LL" but thats me. So DR measurement as total and up to an individuals standard for low light noise acceptance is for me irrelevant. The scientific experiment you quoted, I still think is irrelevant, they take pictures for a purpose, they don't do photography! This is very different, they want to research a certain fact that happens in a certain part of the light "phasma" so they set up equipment for that, it has nothing to do with correct exposure, its "their" correct exposure. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
 P.S. Please excuse my poor English, I can do better, but I haven't practice it for a long time.
 
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4024



« Reply #30 on: October 08, 2011, 11:40:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Erik, "a great photographer is the one that can "see" the PHOTOGRAPH before he even captures it: C.Bresson" + "A photograph is only the printed thing on paper: Me and many others". Which means that a photograph originates in capturing and the process is already known to the photographer, anything else is playing with cameras and process but it has nothing to do with PHOTOGRAPHY, it may be "world advancement", "photography", "aesthetics", "graphics", "technique" or whatever ...you name it! But it certainly has nothing to do with PHOTOGRAPHY no matter of how many support one or the other "opinion". Art was never "democratical"  from majority POV and it will never be, history and survival through time is the only judgment for it! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

Hey Guys,

 Can we go back to technology? For me art lives shown, dies discussed.

Edmund
 
Logged
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #31 on: October 08, 2011, 11:47:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Hey Guys,

 Can we go back to technology? For me art lives shown, dies discussed.

Edmund
 
Isn't this a photographers thread? Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #32 on: October 08, 2011, 12:06:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Isn't this a photographers thread?

Dear me, no. Whatever gave you that idea?
Logged

fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #33 on: October 08, 2011, 12:15:06 PM »
ReplyReply

 Grin
Dear me, no. Whatever gave you that idea?
Grin Sorry... wrong door! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1678


« Reply #34 on: October 08, 2011, 12:42:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Bernard, the sensor may be a linear device, but is one that is acting linearly to produce a non linear result like the S-slope,
Nonsense. The sensor in most camera produce a linear response to light (below the saturation point). If you think otherwise, you may have been fooled by the raw converters that you use?

-h
Logged
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #35 on: October 08, 2011, 12:50:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Nonsense. The sensor in most camera produce a linear response to light (below the saturation point). If you think otherwise, you may have been fooled by the raw converters that you use?

-h
"Nonsense" obviously refers to your ignorance. Change attitude or you won't be responded. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1678


« Reply #36 on: October 08, 2011, 12:57:04 PM »
ReplyReply

"Nonsense" obviously refers to your ignorance.
The only reason that I am replying to your posts is so that no readers will mistake your post for facts. As such, there is no reason to reply unless you actually read up on what you are saying, and give the reader a single link supporting your fantastic claims.

So, do you have one link to others or your own research finding digital camera sensors in general to be non-linear and have an s-curve? I thought not...
http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html
"Digital sensors (both CCD and CMOS) are linear. That means the voltage generated in each pixel, and hence the pixel level emerging from the A-to-D converter (the device that converts the sensor output to discrete bits), is proportional to exposure-- to the light energy reaching the pixel. But neither human vision nor CRT monitors are linear. "

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/gamma-correction.htm
"Our eyes do not perceive light the way cameras do. With a digital camera, when twice the number of photons hit the sensor, it receives twice the signal (a "linear" relationship). Pretty logical, right? That's not how our eyes work."
Quote
Change attitude or you won't be responded. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Even better: you stop responding to these interesting threads. Please? Spend your time elsewhere, photographing, whatever...

-h
« Last Edit: October 08, 2011, 01:09:15 PM by hjulenissen » Logged
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1087


« Reply #37 on: October 08, 2011, 01:06:55 PM »
ReplyReply

"Nonsense" obviously refers to your ignorance. Change attitude or you won't be responded. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

Are you for real? Within a few posts of being offended at what you interpreted as someone calling you ignorant, you are directly saying it to another member. Your ego is way bigger than your sense.

Back to topic.
Isnt DR limited by the lesser of photons in the exposure time or full well capacity? What are the manufacturers doing to increase full well capacity? Higher bit AD converters are needed as well.
Logged
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #38 on: October 08, 2011, 01:09:34 PM »
ReplyReply

The only reason that I am replying to your posts is so that no readers will mistake your post for facts. As such, there is no reason to reply unless you actually read up on what you are saying, and give the reader a single link supporting your fantastic claims.

So, do you have one link to someone with some credits that found digital camera sensors in general to be non-linear and have an s-curve? I thought not...

-h
You still didn't apologize for use of "nonsense" AND you started twisting my saying, just reed a few quotes back there is nowhere a non-linear sensor sentence from me its the opposite(!), its your intentional, provocative and stupid invention. Its all in your mind... (or isn't it?). Please apologize for saying "nonsense".....? I'm sure you worth better as a human being and there are thousands of people watching this. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1678


« Reply #39 on: October 08, 2011, 01:14:55 PM »
ReplyReply

You still didn't apologize for use of "nonsense" AND you started twisting my saying, just reed a few quotes back there is nowhere a non-linear sensor sentence from me its the opposite(!), its your intentional, provocative and stupid invention. Its all in your mind... (or isn't it?). Please apologize for saying "nonsense".....? I'm sure you worth better as a human being and there are thousands of people watching this. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
The original quoted sentence is nonsense in my view. If you can support it with research, I will be the first to retract my statement.

So can you please supply us with references to research supporting your claims, or stop making them?

-h
« Last Edit: October 08, 2011, 01:16:52 PM by hjulenissen » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad