Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: ErikKaffehr on December 04, 2011, 05:42:50 am
-
Hi!
I just posted an article predicting image quality on the coming generation of 36 MP cameras, based on 16 MP APS-C.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/60-what-about-36mp-dslrs
Best regards
Erik
-
Thanks, it does for sure show that accuracy of focus will be critical to tap in the resolution potential.
It will also be interesting to see if some if the rumors related to a non AA filter version of the D800 are true or not.
Finally, lens quality will become very critical, especially color aberation in corners.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Great job with this one ... very interesting post. One issue - when you click on the teapot, you get an error.
-
Hi Bernard,
Just a few observations. The Sony Alpha SLT 55 I used has a weak AA filter and I see quite a lot of aliasing artifacts. So I don't know if 4 micron pixels really grant removal of AA-filtering. But the AA-filter is not exactly cheap and some people don't want it. Regarding lens quality it will be critical, but it is already critical on 16 MP APS-C.
Lateral chromatic aberration can be easily handled in raw conversion on unshifted lenses, with TS it would be worse.
On point I'd make that this images were shot with focus bracketing. I used a Sony 50/1.4 it's decently sharp when stopped down, but at f/1.4 it has a lot of axial chromatic aberration and probably some focus shift. This is less a problem with AF but focus shift may be a problem with "live view" unless you focus stopped down.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks, it does for sure show that accuracy of focus will be critical to tap in the resolution potential.
It will also be interesting to see if some if the rumors related to a non AA filter version of the D800 are true or not.
Finally, lens quality will become very critical, especially color aberation in corners.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I wonder what type of quality one can expect in fullframe lens corners at say f/8-f/11 of good quality primes. With APS-C you only see the center portion.
There's always quality drop towards the lens corners, some suggest that this quality drop is so large even on good lenses that 36 MP is clearly over the top. I think it will be good enough, but I don't really know how to estimate that type of performance without actually having a 36 MP fullframe sensor.
-
Hi,
Yes that may be a concern. My take is that high quality lenses on the long side are normally excellent across the image. Wide angles are problematic. Some extreme wide angles are very good, Nikon 14-24/2.8 and Zeiss 21/2.8 come to mind, but most are not so good in the corners.
In general, there is only one plane of focus and that is where you can achieve maximum sharpness. So for landscape and architecture with wide angles that is probably an issue. The solution is:
- Get good lenses
- Stop down to best aperture
On the other hand, going from 24 MP to 36 MP is not a dramatic step, a 22% increase in resolution. The major benefit may be less jaggies, less aliasing and that the image sharpens and scales better. It's better that the sensor outresolves the lens than the other way around, you get less aliasing.
Best regards
Erik
I wonder what type of quality one can expect in fullframe lens corners at say f/8-f/11 of good quality primes. With APS-C you only see the center portion.
There's always quality drop towards the lens corners, some suggest that this quality drop is so large even on good lenses that 36 MP is clearly over the top. I think it will be good enough, but I don't really know how to estimate that type of performance without actually having a 36 MP fullframe sensor.
-
It's better that the sensor outresolves the lens than the other way around, you get less aliasing.
Couldn't agree more :-). I do hope these sensors materialize. With high res sensors I think we will see more development in the deconvolution field too, to be able to reverse lens and diffraction blur to some extent.
-
Hi,
Here is an interesting posting by Diglloyd: http://www.diglloyd.com/blog/2011/20111121_1-Megapixels.html
Small comment. Going from 24 MP to 36 MP is a minor step. It's a 22% increase in resolution. No dramatic effects expected.
Best regards
Erik
-
Small comment. Going from 24 MP to 36 MP is a minor step. It's a 22% increase in resolution. No dramatic effects expected.
That's true. But it seems to be seen as being truer when the jump is done between 2 DSLRs as opposed to being done from a DSLR to a so called MF camera. ;D
Realistically though, it is also going to be true that the jump from a hypothetical 36 MP D800 to a 50 MP H4D50 will be even more insignificant. Insignificant for demanding very large print applications and even more insignificant for normal size prints... like A2.
That is based on the assumption of a perfect focus, perfect technique,... that is typically not achieved in many images because many people just cannot afford to spend the increasingly longer time required to tap in those types of resolutions in a single frame.
The painful truth remains that stitching is the only significant way forward in resolution for those applications needing real detail that are compatible with the technique.
Of course, 36 can also be seen as being 3x12 which could have different implications. ::)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
I mostly mean that increasing resolution by 22% doesn't subjects lenses to enormous stress.
Regarding MF, it's also much about lenses. Best lenses on DSLRs may match the lesser lenses on MFDBs, but in general I would suggest that MF has an advantage of size.
3x36 is 108, BTW. I also know my math ;-)
Best regards
Erik
That's true. But it seems to be seen as being truer when the jump is done between 2 DSLRs as opposed to being done from a DSLR to a so called MF camera. ;D
Realistically though, it is also going to be true that the jump from a hypothetical 36 MP D800 to a 50 MP H4D50 will be even more insignificant. Insignificant for demanding very large print applications and even more insignificant for normal size prints... like A2.
That is based on the assumption of a perfect focus, perfect technique,... that is typically not achieved in many images because many people just cannot afford to spend the increasingly longer time required to tap in those types of resolutions in a single frame.
The painful truth remains that stitching is the only significant way forward in resolution for those applications needing real detail that are compatible with the technique.
Of course, 36 can also be seen as being 3x12 which could have different implications. ::)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The painful truth remains that stitching is the only significant way forward in resolution for those applications needing real detail that are compatible with the technique.
superresolution too to some extent and imperfections are helpful for it (provide necessary shifts).
-
High.,Iam new on this forum and i come from the Netherlands so forgive me my bad englisch.I think at normal print sises you wont be able too see the differance between 36MP and 18MP FF sensors because they have both the same sensor sise.Only on very very big enlargements you whil see more detail in the 36 version.I also think that lens resolution whil not be the limiting factor,take a look at Clarkvision.com , he explanes it oll.The test that now becomes interresting is between FF 24x36 mm digital sensor and FF digital medium format sensor.Both have no digital grain orr noise anymore at 100 ISO.I think at normal print sises you wont see the differance anymore because the limiting factor between 24x36 and 6x4.5 medium format analoog always was the grain and not the lens .the sise of the film only becames importend whit very large prints.This limiting grain factor has gone now.So just like the film sise the sensor sise becomes only importent at very very large prints,like 60x90 inch orr more.
-
Hi,
The simplest way to see it is that doubling resolution will allow you to go to the next A-size. So if 18 MP is good for A2 you would be able to A1 with 36 MP. This would be the case if optics were aberration free, and medium aperture were used so diffraction would not set in.
Viewing distance is much involved in this. You could make very large print as long as viewing distance is increased proportionally to print size. This is not really the case, I guess that we see larger prints at relatively close distance.
Increasing sensor size has two advantages:
1) A larger sensor sees more photons. Most noise in digital images comes from the natural variation of incoming photons, so noise will reduce with a larger sensor, all other factors kept constant.
2) A larger sensor will be used with a longer focal length. So the image of any structure will be larger on the sensor. The contrast the lens can transfer increases with image size, so fine detail contrast will be better with a larger sensor, again, all other factors kept constant.
Best regards
Erik
High.,Iam new on this forum and i come from the Netherlands so forgive me my bad englisch.I think at normal print sises you wont be able too see the differance between 36MP and 18MP FF sensors because they have both the same sensor sise.Only on very very big enlargements you whil see more detail in the 36 version.I also think that lens resolution whil not be the limiting factor,take a look at Clarkvision.com , he explanes it oll.The test that now becomes interresting is between FF 24x36 mm digital sensor and FF digital medium format sensor.Both have no digital grain orr noise anymore at 100 ISO.I think at normal print sises you wont see the differance anymore because the limiting factor between 24x36 and 6x4.5 medium format analoog always was the grain and not the lens .the sise of the film only becames importend whit very large prints.This limiting grain factor has gone now.So just like the film sise the sensor sise becomes only importent at very very large prints,like 60x90 inch orr more.
-
Concerning print sizes viewing distances etc it depends very much on what context the image is shown and what the image content is.
A portrait showing a face does not need very high resolution, there's little interest in the small details (pores in the skin), and you want to see the whole face at once. So 10 megapixels or so is probably more than enough for any print size.
Another extreme would be a wide panorama print (say 3:1 format) of a landscape view, mountains in the distance, a village in a valley, roads with cars, trees etc, a large print framed on the wall at eye height. Then it is natural to walk up close to look at small details, and you can look at the image one part at a time.
You don't need large views from mountain tops though, pretty much any landscape picture can apart from being viewed as a whole also be appreciated up close, let the eye wander around in the picture. A high res print is like a hifi audio recording, the artistic content (picture / music) does not get better, but the quality of the medium still adds value.
-
Nice experiment!
It reminds me of some comparative tests i did between the a900 and the Phase P30 back which is about 32mp without aa filter.
I would say that the difference in detail is very similar. Tangible, not compelling, but nevertheless a plus.
On A3 size print, which is about a magazine spread, at an arm lenght distance, it showed some difference in detail to my eyes. of course was barely noticeable.
If that will be a must have, it will depend on the photographer.
If Sony will offer that sub 4000$, I will not pass it.
The petals may not show much of a difference, but the leaves do. IMO
-
Hi,
Yes, I observed that too. It may have to do with lens having chromatic aberration affecting the reds or simply on red light having longer wavelength and thus being more affected by diffraction. Focus should be essentially the same as focus bracket was used at one centimeter intervals at about 1.5 m for both images. Best resolution on test target has been chosen.
I doubt very much if the two could be told apart in A2 prints, but I have not yet made the actual experiment.
Best regards
Erik
Nice experiment!
The petals may not show much of a difference, but the leaves do. IMO
-
I agree, absolutely!
Erik
Concerning print sizes viewing distances etc it depends very much on what context the image is shown and what the image content is.
A portrait showing a face does not need very high resolution, there's little interest in the small details (pores in the skin), and you want to see the whole face at once. So 10 megapixels or so is probably more than enough for any print size.
Another extreme would be a wide panorama print (say 3:1 format) of a landscape view, mountains in the distance, a village in a valley, roads with cars, trees etc, a large print framed on the wall at eye height. Then it is natural to walk up close to look at small details, and you can look at the image one part at a time.
You don't need large views from mountain tops though, pretty much any landscape picture can apart from being viewed as a whole also be appreciated up close, let the eye wander around in the picture. A high res print is like a hifi audio recording, the artistic content (picture / music) does not get better, but the quality of the medium still adds value.
-
Would down sampling in post processing from 36mp to say 24 mp improve the noise? i.e. would it be possible to shoot at a higher ISO for the same noise? If this is true how does one calculate by how much i.e. image shot at ISO 3200/36mp would be similar in noise to 24mp/??mp.
-
Would down sampling in post processing from 36mp to say 24 mp improve the noise? i.e. would it be possible to shoot at a higher ISO for the same noise? If this is true how does one calculate by how much i.e. image shot at ISO 3200/36mp would be similar in noise to 24mp/??mp.
Yes, it is going to decrease the noise, and therefore increase DR.
How much should be possible to compute, but I don't have a clear answer.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Hi,
It depends. Shot noise is essentially independent of pixel size for a given size of sensor and Quantum Efficiency. Think of shot noise as noise lights and mid tones.
Regarding read noise (darkest part of the image) the math is different. Increasing pixel size will reduce noise more than just resampling to lower density. Modern sensors may have much lower readout noise than older sensors. Take for instance the Nikon D7000 which has a very low noise sensor.
Many cameras have pretty high read noise and those can be helped by preamplifiers for high ISO. Canon cameras are like that. Read noise is low at base ISO but is reduced with increasing ISO, so shadow detail is not much affected by increasing ISO from say 100 to 400. Shot noise will increase with increasing exposure.
So the answer to the question depends much on in camera electronics.
The enclosed diagrams demonstrate the difference. DR is based on maximum signal / read noise and corresponds to the darkest part of the image. Tone depth is essentially shot noise.
Both decrease with increasing ISO, but hardware amplification helps Canon at ISO up to around 800, Nikon does not need it. Would the Nikon D7000 be a full frame camera it would have 36 MP. The Canon 7D sensor scaled to full frame would yield 46 MP.
Best regards
Erik
Yes, it is going to decrease the noise, and therefore increase DR.
How much should be possible to compute, but I don't have a clear answer.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Hi,
It depends. Shot noise is essentially independent of pixel size for a given size of sensor and Quantum Efficiency. Think of shot noise as noise lights and mid tones.
Regarding read noise (darkest part of the image) the math is different. Increasing pixel size will reduce noise more than just resampling to lower density.
Downsampling works well as an abstraction when discussing these things, but I dont think that is how one should reduce noise. Rather, one should use a good noise reduction alogrithm.
A good noise reduction algorithm could expolit human vision and camera sensor deficiencies in a better, more complex manner than simply increasing the sensel size (or downsampling). The comparision of large sensels vs small sensels + NR is difficult.
-h
-
My experience is that in practice noise is not the first thing that gives you practical problems when making prints, but instead poor color reproduction is, you get bleaker and bleaker colors and poor tonal range.
Increase of noise levels and reduction of tonal range follow hand in hand though so to compare two systems it is typically enough to look at noise. However if you apply noise reduction algorithms in post it seems to me that you don't just kill some fine detail, you kill color too. Therefore I'm very skeptical about noise reduction in post.
Hardware noise reduction can be good however, when information about the the local noise profile makes it possible to reduce noise without much loss in real signal information.
-
...However if you apply noise reduction algorithms in post it seems to me that you don't just kill some fine detail, you kill color too. Therefore I'm very skeptical about noise reduction in post.
Hardware noise reduction can be good however, when information about the the local noise profile makes it possible to reduce noise without much loss in real signal information.
I was thinking about the post below when writing my response. I believe that any sensible NR should be better than downsampling when trying to reduce noise, and that downsampling for noise reduction is not a good practice. But it makes for a very reasonable "discussion tool" for comparing different camera-choice/processing trade-offs.
Would down sampling in post processing from 36mp to say 24 mp improve the noise? i.e. would it be possible to shoot at a higher ISO for the same noise? If this is true how does one calculate by how much i.e. image shot at ISO 3200/36mp would be similar in noise to 24mp/??mp.
See also these (heated) discussions:
dpreview - downsampling reduces noice! - uh noise! - con't. (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=39856801)
dpreview - downsampling reduces noice! (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=39778828)
-
I was thinking about the post below when writing my response. I believe that any sensible NR should be better than downsampling when trying to reduce noise, and that downsampling for noise reduction is not a good practice.
Hi,
I agree. If (!) downsampling is required and it results in reducing the noise, that's fine. However I don't view it as a means of noise reduction because it also loses a lot of other information. What is important to understand is that noise has a power spectrum along the spatial frequency dimension. So noise can vary at the various spatial frequencies, and downsampling changes the spectrum.
But it makes for a very reasonable "discussion tool" for comparing different camera-choice/processing trade-offs.
Well, fair comparisons require the elimination of variables that are specific to the items under investigation. If output size is one of those variables, then it needs to be eliminated (although one also changes variables that are not included in the specific comparison, such as output resolution).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
In my view the question is what advantage/disadvantage smaller pixels have versus larger pixels. If we look at the two images at the same size or print at the same size either or both of the images will be resized. So we don't discuss downsizing as a method of reducing noise per se but to discuss how noise would be affected if we don't compare both images at actual pixels.
Best regards
Erik
Hi,
I agree. If (!) downsampling is required and it results in reducing the noise, that's fine. However I don't view it as a means of noise reduction because it also loses a lot of other information. What is important to understand is that noise has a power spectrum along the spatial frequency dimension. So noise can vary at the various spatial frequencies, and downsampling changes the spectrum.
Well, fair comparisons require the elimination of variables that are specific to the items under investigation. If output size is one of those variables, then it needs to be eliminated (although one also changes variables that are not included in the specific comparison, such as output resolution).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
In my view the question is what advantage/disadvantage smaller pixels have versus larger pixels. If we look at the two images at the same size or print at the same size either or both of the images will be resized. So we don't discuss downsizing as a method of reducing noise per se but to discuss how noise would be affected if we don't compare both images at actual pixels.
Hi Erik,
Fair enough, but I have difficulty understanding why one gets involved with the drawbacks of smaller sensels (increased per-pixel noise, and larger file size) unless physically larger output with higher resolution is the (optional) goal, or as a means to reduce aliasing.
There are better methods for potentially reducing noise than downsampling.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
In my view the question is what advantage/disadvantage smaller pixels have versus larger pixels. If we look at the two images at the same size or print at the same size either or both of the images will be resized. So we don't discuss downsizing as a method of reducing noise per se but to discuss how noise would be affected if we don't compare both images at actual pixels.
Best regards
Erik
I think that a question that many seems to be interested in is "if I use camera A to make this image, featuring 24MP and APS-C sensor, or camera B, featuring 12MP and APS-C sensor, which will look best printed as A2, everything else equal?" Many have opinions about the results. Some because of long practical, relevant experience. Some because of long practical, irrelevant experience. Some because of solid theoretical understanding. Some because of faulty theoretical understanding.
For making fair side-by-side images that people will tend to scrutinize at 1:1 pixel, it makes sense to me 1) to downsample the hirez one (to consider low-light relative performance at smallish printsize vs original lorez image) and 2)to upsample the lorez one (to consider level of details at larger print sizes vs hirez one). One might say that this comparision is unfair: you should rather resample directly to whatever the viewing resolution is, and apply optimal NR to both. But what is optimal NR and how is it defined?
BTW, as I said at dpreview, I think that downsampling can be viewed as similar to noise reduction. What it does it similar to noise reduction (reduce noise and detail), only that it does not do it particulary well, and was never meant to by the designer. The "noise reducing" capabilities of downsampling is limited to the inherent prefilter, so when studying downsamplings effects on image noise it might be wise to consider only the (more or less) brickwall lowpassfilter. An favored ad-hoc choice seems to be the 2-3rd order lanczos response (sinc windowed by a sinc).
-h
-
Hi,
If we assume that printer resolution is 360 PPI and we print at A2 the pixel dimension for the print will be around 8300x5900. That is about 50 MPixels. So for A2 prints pretty much everything this side of P65+ will be "upprezzed" in print. The resizing would either be done in LR/PS or by the printer driver.
The above calculation is based 42x59 cm print size, in many cases the actual image would be significantly smaller.
Best regards
Erik
I think that a question that many seems to be interested in is "if I use camera A to make this image, featuring 24MP and APS-C sensor, or camera B, featuring 12MP and APS-C sensor, which will look best printed as A2, everything else equal?" Many have opinions about the results. Some because of long practical, relevant experience. Some because of long practical, irrelevant experience. Some because of solid theoretical understanding. Some because of faulty theoretical understanding.
For making fair side-by-side images that people will tend to scrutinize at 1:1 pixel, it makes sense to me 1) to downsample the hirez one (to consider low-light relative performance at smallish printsize vs original lorez image) and 2)to upsample the lorez one (to consider level of details at larger print sizes vs hirez one). One might say that this comparision is unfair: you should rather resample directly to whatever the viewing resolution is, and apply optimal NR to both. But what is optimal NR and how is it defined?
BTW, as I said at dpreview, I think that downsampling can be viewed as similar to noise reduction. What it does it similar to noise reduction (reduce noise and detail), only that it does not do it particulary well, and was never meant to by the designer. The "noise reducing" capabilities of downsampling is limited to the inherent prefilter, so when studying downsamplings effects on image noise it might be wise to consider only the (more or less) brickwall lowpassfilter. An favored ad-hoc choice seems to be the 2-3rd order lanczos response (sinc windowed by a sinc).
-h
-
Hi,
Here is an interesting posting by Diglloyd: http://www.diglloyd.com/blog/2011/20111121_1-Megapixels.html
Small comment. Going from 24 MP to 36 MP is a minor step. It's a 22% increase in resolution. No dramatic effects expected.
Best regards
Erik
Going from 16mpx to 24 is the same minor step.... Cheers, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Hi,
Yes, indeed! We are climbing the ladder in small steps. Going from 16MP to 24MP is a small step, and so going from 24 MP to 36MP. Going from 16 to 36 MP is probably a significant step. The observation I made in my "demo" was that the advantage of 36 MP over 24 MP was clearly visible on charts, but far less on the red flower include in the picture. Someone observed that the greens were better on the "36MP" image. This may possibly depend on diffraction. Red light will show much more diffraction than green light. Or it could depend on chromatic aberration.
Making pixels smaller allows for weaker OLP-filtering. I have seen some Moiré on my 16 MP APS-C camera and some Moiré is also present in Michael Reichmans test images with the NEX-7, 24MP APS-C.
Best regards
Erik
Going from 16mpx to 24 is the same minor step.... Cheers, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Hi,
Yes, indeed! We are climbing the ladder in small steps. Going from 16MP to 24MP is a small step, and so going from 24 MP to 36MP. Going from 16 to 36 MP is probably a significant step. The observation I made in my "demo" was that the advantage of 36 MP over 24 MP was clearly visible on charts, but far less on the red flower include in the picture. Someone observed that the greens were better on the "36MP" image. This may possibly depend on diffraction. Red light will show much more diffraction than green light. Or it could depend on chromatic aberration.
Making pixels smaller allows for weaker OLP-filtering. I have seen some Moiré on my 16 MP APS-C camera and some Moiré is also present in Michael Reichmans test images with the NEX-7, 24MP APS-C.
Best regards
Erik
Hence, there is no problem with resolution but rather a problem of "pixel definition", where bigger pixels have the advantage in DR and noise. Of course smaller pixels do behave better as far as moire is concerned but is this enough to ignore DR and noise? Shouldn't the manufacturers look for different ways than oversizing sensors to overcome moire? I remember you believe that a 4μm sensor can do both but I think that looking at what sensor manufactures do (with the recent example of 1DX or MF manufactures) they (and I) think different. I also think that its irrelevant to judge from an aps-c sensor, since there you don't have the huge angle that is required on a full frame sensor for light to enter the pixel well at the edge of the frame. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
P.S. Clearly I don't believe there will be any 36mpx D800, I don't believe they will change a winning horse/policy, its stupid marketing to do so. There may be such a sensor as an alternative to the 16mpx one on the D4, which I am almost sure that will have interchangeable sensors, but not on a D700 replacement, the 16mpx sensor will be more than enough there.
-
Hence, there is no problem with resolution but rather a problem of "pixel definition", where bigger pixels have the advantage in DR and noise. Of course smaller pixels do behave better as far as moire is concerned but is this enough to ignore DR and noise? Shouldn't the manufacturers look for different ways than oversizing sensors to overcome moire? I remember you believe that a 4μm sensor can do both but I think that looking at what sensor manufactures do (with the recent example of 1DX or MF manufactures) they (and I) think different. I also think that its irrelevant to judge from an aps-c sensor, since there you don't have the huge angle that is required on a full frame sensor for light to enter the pixel well at the edge of the frame. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
P.S. Clearly I don't believe there will be any 36mpx D800, I don't believe they will change a winning horse/policy, its stupid marketing to do so. There may be such a sensor as an alternative to the 16mpx one on the D4, which I am almost sure that will have interchangeable sensors, but not on a D700 replacement, the 16mpx sensor will be more than enough there.
Technology has been proven to have a larger impact on DR than theoretical physics, has it not?
The gap of DR between a D3x and a 1Ds MkI is much larger than the gap between MF and 35mm ever was in a given generation of sensors.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
I have never discussed downsizing the image as method of noise reduction. What I say is that shot noise mainly depends on sensor size and not pixel size, when the image is printed. I also assume that we are interested in printing large. The original posting on this thread refers to an experiment I made:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/60-what-about-36mp-dslrs
The main advantages with smaller pixels I see is mainly:
- Aliasing effects are reduced
- OLP filtering is effectively reduced
- The image will need less sharpening and also respond better to sharpening, at least at low ISO
But I'm pretty sure that OLP-filtering is still needed. Aliasing would only be possible if the lens transfers significant MTF at pixel pitch and I'm surprised how well lenses hold up to modern sensors. On the NEX-7 "BJanes" measured 109 lp/mm on the DPreview comparison image. I have seen some artifacts and also color Moiré on my Sony Alpha 55 SLT. Sometimes it shows up as detail that is probably unnatural.
There has been some discussion on negative side effects of smaller pixels, with possible crosstalk between cells.
This article may be of interest regarding optimal pixel size: http://isl.stanford.edu/~abbas/group/papers_and_pub/pixelsize.pdf
Anyway the issue is complex. One aim is the best possible reproduction of detail, but that also needs careful work. Camera on tripod, MLU, exact focusing and using moderate apertures to avoid diffraction. The other extreme is low light shooting under free hand condition. Sensor FWC will be underutilized, and read noise much more visible.
It seems that the cameras of today having best high ISO performance have relatively large pixels, but don't have very good DR at low ISO, because of high amount of readout noise. It is also my understanding that high ISO cameras normally use pre amplifiers to achieve medium ISO values, but that means that the signal coming out of the sensor must be cleaner than the unamplified signal going into the ADC, otherwise amplification would not help. Why then is no preamplification used at base ISO?
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
Fair enough, but I have difficulty understanding why one gets involved with the drawbacks of smaller sensels (increased per-pixel noise, and larger file size) unless physically larger output with higher resolution is the (optional) goal, or as a means to reduce aliasing.
There are better methods for potentially reducing noise than downsampling.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
I don't think technology trumps physics, except for placebo effects. Better technology allows better utilization of limitation set by physics, and technology would not be possible without the underlaying physics.
Best regards
Erik
Technology has been proven to have a larger impact on DR than theoretical physics, has it not?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Technology has been proven to have a larger impact on DR than theoretical physics, has it not?
The gap of DR between a D3x and a 1Ds MkI is much larger than the gap between MF and 35mm ever was in a given generation of sensors.
Cheers,
Bernard
Up to an extend yes, but this doesn't mean that the engineers should ignore physics, it rather means that they better keep a balance that improves both resolution/moire and DR/noise, thats what they are doing up to now isn't it? OTOH look at Canon, they seem to be changing their up to now policy, obviously because they favored resolution more than they should to the direct competition which has beat them in DR/noise. That's why I am sure that in Nikon they won't change a winning horse. I have used the d3x a lot in my studio, to be honest I whould prefer the A900 for the same task, don't you find that Nikon overdid it a bit at in-camera manipulation to give a more "balanced" camera? The A900 seems to be both a little sharper and with slightly better highlight DR. At the end I decided to stay with my Contax645/Imacon 528c combo for the task, although I am a Nikon user, it was clearly better than both, but on moire. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Hi,
I think this issue with DR is a bit overblown. It is a technical term, essentially measurable maximum possible signal/minimum noise.
Best regards
Erik
Up to an extend yes, but this doesn't mean that the engineers should ignore physics, it rather means that they better keep a balance that improves both resolution/moire and DR/noise, thats what they are doing up to now isn't it? OTOH look at Canon, they seem to be changing their up to now policy, obviously because they favored resolution more than they should to the direct competition which has beat them in DR/noise. That's why I am sure that in Nikon they won't change a winning horse. I have used the d3x a lot in my studio, to be honest I whould prefer the A900 for the same task, don't you find that Nikon overdid it a bit at in-camera manipulation to give a more "balanced" camera? The A900 seems to be both a little sharper and with slightly better highlight DR. At the end I decided to stay with my Contax645/Imacon 528c combo for the task, although I am a Nikon user, it was clearly better than both, but on moire. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Hi,
I think this issue with DR is a bit overblown. It is a technical term, essentially measurable maximum possible signal/minimum noise.
Best regards
Erik
I suppose it differs from one photographer to another, to me, highlight DR is the most important from all factors that influence photography, I find it on the best sensors to be at least a stop behind film, that's the reason I still use film in some cases. Even the Fuji s5 which is in a class of it's own among digital on that matter (my favorite among my DSLRs), is behind film. I wish/hope that the new generation of DSLRs will fill the gap! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Hi,
There you are! For you DR is about highlight detail. When you compare with film, do you compare with Slide, BW or print film?
Fuji has a neat trick of extending DR with essentially a dual set of pixels in their sensors, with one set for highlight.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/Super-CCD
Best regards
Erik
I suppose it differs from one photographer to another, to me, highlight DR is the most important from all factors that influence photography, I find it on the best sensors to be at least a stop behind film, that's the reason I still use film in some cases. Even the Fuji s5 which is in a class of it's own among digital on that matter (my favorite among my DSLRs), is behind film. I wish/hope that the new generation of DSLRs will fill the gap! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Hi,
There you are! For you DR is about highlight detail. When you compare with film, do you compare with Slide, BW or print film?
Fuji has a neat trick of extending DR with essentially a dual set of pixels in their sensors, with one set for highlight.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/Super-CCD
Best regards
Erik
Negative only, B&W or Color, DR is worst on slides. I wish they would have improved on Fuji's technology further! PHEEWW what a camera this would prove to be with another five years of development! Imagine a 30mpx FF sensor (no need to change the size of either R or S sensors), with further improvement in color, DR and noise! Merry Christmas, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Hi,
I don't know why Fuji didn't develop the technology further.
On the other hand, I have been shooting Minolta, and than Sony Alpha 100,700,900 and 55SLT and very seldom found DR an issue, except when sun is included in the image.
Just another observation, DR of digital cameras is wider than any present output media, so some decent tone mapping can be needed to tame the dynamic range.
Best regards
Erik
Negative only, B&W or Color, DR is worst on slides. I wish they would have improved on Fuji's technology further! PHEEWW what a camera this would prove to be with another five years of development! Imagine a 30mpx FF sensor (no need to change the size of either R or S sensors), with further improvement in color, DR and noise! Merry Christmas, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Highlight DR does simply not exist with linear digital sensors.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Highlight DR does simply not exist with linear digital sensors.
Cheers,
Bernard
I won't try to convince you for the opposite, you are simply wrong! Merry Christmas, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
P.S. The sensor may be linear but the output signal is not, nor is the translation (electrically) to the sensor of the input signal!
-
I won't try to convince you for the opposite, you are simply wrong! Merry Christmas, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
P.S. The sensor may be linear but the output signal is not, nor is the translation (electrically) to the sensor of the input signal!
The result of the adc from the commercially available CMOS/CCD sensor is linear relative to the incoming illumination. Up to a well defined point where the sensels reach saturation. This what linear means.
As a result highlight DR does not exist.
What does exist is:
- under-rated ISO/exposure calibration (real ISO 50 is called ISO 100 to generate on purpose under exposure),
- smart raw conversion algos giving the illusion of highlight DR.
The Fuji S5 belongs to the first category, it's array of smaller secondary sensels has a lower real ISO than th main sensels for which it's ISO is calibrated. It does therefore underexpose.
The only choice is btwn a camera providing you real information about the data it captured or one giving you the illusion of highlight DR. I prefer the former.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I won't try to convince you for the opposite, you are simply wrong! Merry Christmas, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
P.S. The sensor may be linear but the output signal is not, nor is the translation (electrically) to the sensor of the input signal!
I have to agree with Bernard. The concept of highlight and shadow DR harkens back to film, which has a shoulder and knee in the characteristic curve. This concept has been carried over by DPReview in their reviews. They use a Stouffer wedge and look at JPEGS to which an S curve has been applied. However, the raw file output is linear if there is no clipping as shown below for the Nikon D3. A Stouffer wedge was photographed and the file was rendered linearly with IRIS.
I also wish merry Christmas to all.
Regards,
Bill
-
The result of the adc from the commercially available CMOS/CCD sensor is linear relative to the incoming illumination. Up to a well defined point where the sensels reach saturation. This what linear means.
As a result highlight DR does not exist.
What does exist is:
- under-rated ISO/exposure calibration (real ISO 50 is called ISO 100 to generate on purpose under exposure),
- smart raw conversion algos giving the illusion of highlight DR.
The Fuji S5 belongs to the first category, it's array of smaller secondary sensels has a lower real ISO than th main sensels for which it's ISO is calibrated. It does therefore underexpose.
The only choice is btwn a camera providing you real information about the data it captured or one giving you the illusion of highlight DR. I prefer the former.
Cheers,
Bernard
It's not what I said and doesn't have anything to do with what I said. The sensor may be linear but the S-slope is not and nor is the sensors outcome, the input is not imported linearly to the sensor either. In fact to produce the S-slope the sensels are controlled at different Iso value depending on the light intensity they receive. This means that depending on the shot, the sensor directs some pixels to higher, some others to even higher, some others to different, some more to lower (etc)... sensitivity to achieve the S-slope. Thats not very linear behavior is it? That is exactly why you see noise at the deep shadows, even if you set sensitivity to the minimum. In fact the logic (control circuit) of the sensor is trying to fool the sensor and make it behave like film, its just that they haven't succeed yet, but its getting better all the time..., lets hope this time they will succeed! Merry Christmas, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
I have to agree with Bernard. The concept of highlight and shadow DR harkens back to film, which has a shoulder and knee in the characteristic curve. This concept has been carried over by DPReview in their reviews. They use a Stouffer wedge and look at JPEGS to which an S curve has been applied. However, the raw file output is linear if there is no clipping as shown below for the Nikon D3. A Stouffer wedge was photographed and the file was rendered linearly with IRIS.
I also wish merry Christmas to all.
Regards,
Bill
This is measuring the sensor Bill, not the whole process of capturing/storing data. The sensor IS linear. Merry Christmas to you and your family. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Hi,
Merry Christmas to all and peace on Earth!
What Bill shows is that the raw data is linear. Now, we are never looking at raw data directly. The raw data is converted to a visible image. That conversion normally involves the use of an S-curve, but we are really free to choose any curve or straight line. Chemical rendering has the S-curve built in. It has a shoulder and a toe. This is typical of chemical processes.
Digital images have problems in extreme highlights. Film saturates but digital clips. Little to do about it. If the highlights are not to extreme we can expose for highlights, but it is often not possible.
Best regards
Erik
This is measuring the sensor Bill, not the whole process of capturing/storing data. The sensor IS linear. Merry Christmas to you and your family. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Using a D3x the last three years and making architectural work, what i would like to see is not so much more pixels, but better color at higher iso values, - as we see on the D3s- and a gentle way to handle dust.
I spend far too much time cleaning my images- on the computer, -with a blower in the camera and 0 have to get it cleaned at Nikon every two months...
-
It's not what I said and doesn't have anything to do with what I said. The sensor may be linear but the S-slope is not and nor is the sensors outcome, the input is not imported linearly to the sensor either. In fact to produce the S-slope the sensels are controlled at different Iso value depending on the light intensity they receive. This means that depending on the shot, the sensor directs some pixels to higher, some others to even higher, some others to different, some more to lower (etc)... sensitivity to achieve the S-slope. Thats not very linear behavior is it? That is exactly why you see noise at the deep shadows, even if you set sensitivity to the minimum. In fact the logic (control circuit) of the sensor is trying to fool the sensor and make it behave like film, its just that they haven't succeed yet, but its getting better all the time..., lets hope this time they will succeed! Merry Christmas, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
The outcome of the sensor is a raw file that, at least at base ISO, does not contain any S curve. The S curve is applied when converting the raw file.
I guess that the point you are trying to make may be:
- Some sensors apply some form of amplification of the electric signal at higher ISOs, and this amplification may not be applied linearly. I would be interested in factual data you might have about this?
- Not all sensors have the same quality of analog to digital conversion near saturation, which may result in harsher transitions from non blown to blown areas. In essence, this would mean that some sensors behave non linearly near saturation. This may be true accross a very small range of illuminations, but would still basically not explain the highlight DR you claim exists.
Sorry, I still don't see anything in your argument that would explain highlight DR. Until proven otherwise, I'll stick tot the well accepted proposal that DR with linear sensors is ONLY depednant on shadow noise. The rest is just a pleasant illusion.
Merry x-Mas to you as well!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This is measuring the sensor Bill, not the whole process of capturing/storing data. The sensor IS linear. Merry Christmas to you and your family. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
No, this does measure the content of the raw file. Which is all we have.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Using a D3x the last three years and making architectural work, what i would like to see is not so much more pixels, but better color at higher iso values, - as we see on the D3s-
Just genuinely curious, may I ask why you are using high ISOs for architecture work?
Is it related to the amount of lighting you are willing to use?
If that is the case, why not stitch with a D3s? Or wait a few weeks until the D4 is announced/made available.
cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
I use an Arctic Butterfly on my Sony Alpha 900, it works well, and I never needed to do wet cleaning on the camera or send it in for cleaning.
Best regards
Erik
Using a D3x the last three years and making architectural work, what i would like to see is not so much more pixels, but better color at higher iso values, - as we see on the D3s- and a gentle way to handle dust.
I spend far too much time cleaning my images- on the computer, -with a blower in the camera and 0 have to get it cleaned at Nikon every two months...
-
Hi,
In my view we have three issues here:
1) Film essentially compresses extreme highlights. Adding more light increases density very slightly (on negative film).
2) To capture highlights we need to expose for highlights. Handling specular highlights may be not possible, see #1.
3) If all is perfectly done we have wide DR and a boring image.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/Psychadelic/FromHereToHere.jpg)
The image on the left is the "original" image processed using Lightroom controls. The image on the right is from the same exposure, but using some intensive manipulation is PS.
Here is how that image has been processed: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/61-hdr-tone-mapping-on-ordinary-image
Please note that even if HDR mapping is used the image is based on a single ETTR exposure.
Best regards
Erik
The outcome of the sensor is a raw file that, at least at base ISO, does not contain any S curve. The S curve is applied when converting the raw file.
I guess that the point you are trying to make may be:
- Some sensors apply some form of amplification of the electric signal at higher ISOs, and this amplification may not be applied linearly. I would be interested in factual data you might have about this?
- Not all sensors have the same quality of analog to digital conversion near saturation, which may result in harsher transitions from non blown to blown areas. In essence, this would mean that some sensors behave non linearly near saturation. This may be true accross a very small range of illuminations, but would still basically not explain the highlight DR you claim exists.
Sorry, I still don't see anything in your argument that would explain highlight DR. Until proven otherwise, I'll stick tot the well accepted proposal that DR with linear sensors is ONLY depednant on shadow noise. The rest is just a pleasant illusion.
Merry x-Mas to you as well!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The outcome of the sensor is a raw file that, at least at base ISO, does not contain any S curve. The S curve is applied when converting the raw file.
I guess that the point you are trying to make may be:
- Some sensors apply some form of amplification of the electric signal at higher ISOs, and this amplification may not be applied linearly. I would be interested in factual data you might have about this?
- Not all sensors have the same quality of analog to digital conversion near saturation, which may result in harsher transitions from non blown to blown areas. In essence, this would mean that some sensors behave non linearly near saturation. This may be true accross a very small range of illuminations, but would still basically not explain the highlight DR you claim exists.
Sorry, I still don't see anything in your argument that would explain highlight DR. Until proven otherwise, I'll stick tot the well accepted proposal that DR with linear sensors is ONLY depednant on shadow noise. The rest is just a pleasant illusion.
Merry x-Mas to you as well!
Cheers,
Bernard
The only thing that I am saying is that the linear raws that result from the analog to digital conversion, have compressed highlights and shadows, ie they are a linearized S-slope, that tries to behave like film was, its obvious when you open the files on your raw converter, just observe a high contrast scene carefully. This is different to the latitude that the data may have which allows us to produce a new S-slope during PP (D/A conversion). Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
The only thing that I am saying is that the linear raws that result from the analog to digital conversion, have compressed highlights and shadows, ie they are a linearized S-slope, that tries to behave like film was, its obvious when you open the files on your raw converter, just observe a high contrast scene carefully. This is different to the latitude that the data may have which allows us to produce a new S-slope during PP (D/A conversion). Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Well, the raw file is not trying to do anything, it just contains the linear information recorded by the sensor. It has no idead what film was, it just records numerical values that are simply proportional to the amount of illuminations that reached the sensor, up to a point where the sensor saturates and beyond which you only record 255,255,255 whatever the amount of additional illumination.
Back to our initial point, do you now agree that highlight DR does not exist?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well, the raw file is not trying to do anything, it just contains the linear information recorded by the sensor. It has no idead what film was, it just records numerical values that are simply proportional to the amount of illuminations that reached the sensor, up to a point where the sensor saturates and beyond which you only record 255,255,255 whatever the amount of additional illumination.
Back to our initial point, do you now agree that highlight DR does not exist?
Cheers,
Bernard
No it doesn't, but of course you are entitled to believe "its the linear info recorded by the sensor", its linear alright but not as it would have been recorded by the sensor if light/noise/sensitivity wasn't "tweaked" by the various "expeed, digitech, ...etc" engines! ...No it does exist, but you are entitled to believe it doesn't! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
No it doesn't, but of course you are entitled to believe "its the linear info recorded by the sensor", its linear alright but not as it would have been recorded by the sensor if light/noise/sensitivity wasn't "tweaked" by the various "expeed, digitech, ...etc" engines! ...No it does exist, but you are entitled to believe it doesn't! Regards, Theodoros.
Hum... I guess we must be using different forms of logic. I'd say that mine is pretty standard, yours must be an improved version. :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hum... I guess we must be using different forms of logic. I'd say that mine is pretty standard, yours must be an improved version. :)
Cheers,
Bernard
+1 8) Cheers, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
No it doesn't, but of course you are entitled to believe "its the linear info recorded by the sensor", its linear alright but not as it would have been recorded by the sensor if light/noise/sensitivity wasn't "tweaked" by the various "expeed, digitech, ...etc" engines! ...No it does exist, but you are entitled to believe it doesn't! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
You are entitled to an opinion, but I think that yours is wrong. I don't know if it is the translation, but I really don't see what you are trying to say with these posts. Do you have something concrete, of value, to teach us? Or are you just popping up once in a while with far-out claims?
-h
-
Either it is linear, or it is not. Linear means no shoulder, no tweak, no digitech, no compressed highlights and shadows... but a linear response to the number of photons (within the known model limitations of noise and saturation). Since it seems that you have a different opinion from most of us (including the first sensible hits on google) on this issue, I would say that the burden of evidence is yours.
So do you have an image of a reference scene showing this? A reference to a paper? Some theory explaining what you belive to be happening?
-h
Please read my other quotes, you are out of subject which is (was) if highlight DR exists or not, this doesn't have to do with Raw dada being linear but whether the linearization comes from an A/D conversion of an S-slope, which it is! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Please read my other quotes, you are out of subject which is (was) if highlight DR exists or not, this doesn't have to do with Raw dada being linear but whether the linearization comes from an A/D conversion of an S-slope, which it is! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Since it seems that many readers have problems understanding what you are trying to say:
Do you believe that the signals found in a raw file tends to be a linear representation of the number of photons hitting the sensor, limited by noise and saturation? What component do you believe is carrying out linearization? Where does an s-curve ever come into relevance between the scene and the raw-files that my Canon DSLR generates?
-h
-
Please read my other quotes, you are out of subject which is (was) if highlight DR exists or not, this doesn't have to do with Raw dada being linear but whether the linearization comes from an A/D conversion of an S-slope, which it is! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Ok. Be clear.
Where is this "s-slope" in RAW digital capture? What does "highlight DR" mean in the context of RAW digital capture?
You seem to be claiming that there is an 's-slope' in the analog signal that is removed by the ADC. Is that your claim?
-
Ok. Be clear.
Where is this "s-slope" in RAW digital capture? What does "highlight DR" mean in the context of RAW digital capture?
You seem to be claiming that there is an 's-slope' in the analog signal that is removed by the ADC. Is that your claim?
What? ??? s-slope removed(!!) by the ...ADC ? :D Good Lord. Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
What? ??? s-slope removed(!!) by the ...ADC ? :D Good Lord. Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Is it your intent to confuse the reader? If not, might I suggest that you calmly and thoroughly answer the unaswered questions that have been put forth to you.
-h
-
Is it your intent to confuse the reader? If not, might I suggest that you calmly and thoroughly answer the unaswered questions that have been put forth to you.
-h
But I have, look at number 53 up there! There are some people that think that our eye sees linearly, NO IT DOESN'T, it sees (the brain) using S-slope conversion. The raw data (try to) linearize the scene the way that humans see it, not by the linear light that truly exists in the world, hense the data output is a linearized S-slope, hense highlight DR does exist. Because the data is linear, it doesn't mean that the light we see recorded in them is linear! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
But I have, look at number 53 up there! There are some people that think that our eye sees linearly, NO IT DOESN'T, it sees (the brain) using S-slope conversion. The raw data (try to) linearize the scene the way that humans see it, not by the linear light that truly exists in the world, hense the data output is a linearized S-slope, hense highlight DR does exist. Because the data is linear, it doesn't mean that the light we see recorded in them is linear! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
If the captured image is to reproduce the scene, it must be scene referred--no curve applied. The human visual response (L*) is approximately cube root. If you applied this response to the data and then the output were viewed by a human, the visual response function would have been applied twice.
The output written to the raw file is linear, but the data may be gamma encoded and an S curve applied by the raw converter. The concept of highlight headroom may apply to such altered data, but not to the linear data of the raw file. Even though our working spaces are gamma encoded for perceptual uniformity with editing, the inverse gamma function is applied when the data are printed or sent to the screen.
Regards,
Bill
-
If the captured image is to reproduce the scene, it must be scene referred--no curve applied. The human visual response (L*) is approximately cube root. If you applied this response to the data and then the output were viewed by a human, the visual response function would have been applied twice.
The output written to the raw file is linear, but the data may be gamma encoded and an S curve applied by the raw converter. The concept of highlight headroom may apply to such altered data, but not to the linear data of the raw file. Even though our working spaces are gamma encoded for perceptual uniformity with editing, the inverse gamma function is applied when the data are printed or sent to the screen.
Regards,
Bill
Bill, the human vision (like S-slope) does have a linear part! Hense there is no chance to convert something twice, at least not if after the first conversion it falls in the linear part (or most of it). Anyway, this is a photo thread and although scientific approaches are interesting, we care about the photographic result and in this forum we look how pixel density affects our photography. To a photographer a raw file has a meaning only in what it shows to him on his monitor when he opens it and the highlight DR that he sees (which I am glad you confirmed), varies or has different latitude from sensor to sensor. Its called highlight DR because its on a curve that extends from a linear part and hence underexposing to preserve it, a)helps less than it should, b) squeezes the linear part of the picture more or much more than it affects the highlights which can turn an image into a mess! Thats why I don't like small pixels and I believe that progress in resolution should be sensible, surely tech advancement helps to preserve characteristics and improve resolution, but for most photographers (I hope) "preserve" is not enough, sensors must improve further in highlight DR and noise. Then we can look at resolution. Happy new year, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
...The raw data (try to) linearize the scene the way that humans see it, not by the linear light that truly exists in the world, hense the data output is a linearized S-slope, hense highlight DR does exist. Because the data is linear, it doesn't mean that the light we see recorded in them is linear! ...
So the answer to my question below is "yes"?
...Do you believe that the signals found in a raw file tends to be a linear representation of the number of photons hitting the sensor, limited by noise and saturation? ...
-
So the answer to my question below is "yes"?
The question shouldn't be on what the sensor does but whether some pixels are directed to subtract some of the photons that hit them or some others are directed to amplify the light received (with noise of course). Can I please know your real name and occupation? I 'd like to know who I am talking with... and can you direct me to see some of your photography in the web? Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
The question shouldn't be on what the sensor does but whether some pixels are directed to subtract some of the photons that hit them or some others are directed to amplify the light received (with noise of course).
If you don't want to tell us what you are claiming, can you please stop claiming that digital raw files have s-curves, shoulders, or similar things?
Can I please know your real name and occupation? I 'd like to know who I am talking with...
I am sorry, no.
and can you direct me to see some of your photography in the web? Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Sure:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=57543.0
-h
-
Anyway, this is a photo thread and although scientific approaches are interesting, we care about the photographic result and in this forum we look how pixel density affects our photography.
Some people care about the scientific side of things, others don't. I think that no-one should dictate how others approach their hobby or occupation.
To a photographer a raw file has a meaning only in what it shows to him on his monitor when he opens it and the highlight DR that he sees
One could equally say that a true photographer never will discuss battery life, as it won't appear as an artifact in her images. But for many photographers battery life is important to get the pictures that they want, and for them, direct measurements of battery life could be a lot more meaningful than staring only at jpegs. I think that the measured performance of raw files is an important indicator of critical elements of image quality if tests are properly conducted and interpreted (something that regretteably often does not happen).
I think it is important to know that raw-files usually represent a linear measurement of light hitting the sensor (limited by noise and saturation). No shoulder, no s-curves, ... It is equally essential to know why a non-linear response is often applied before the image is displayed on a monitor or print. Human visual perception plays a part in it, but only to answer the "whys", not the "hows".
-h
-
If you don't want to tell us what you are claiming, can you please stop claiming that digital raw files have s-curves, shoulders, or similar things? I am sorry, no.Sure:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=57543.0
-h
Unless you do, please don't quote me back ever again. I don't talk anonymously or share photographic discussion with non-photographers. Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Unless you do, please don't quote me back ever again. I don't talk anonymously or share photographic discussion with non-photographers. Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Every time I see a misleading or erroneous post in here, I will try to make a polite reply that aids the reader, just like I expect everyone else to do.
If you don't like being questioned or being quoted, my best advice would be spending your time elsewhere, using your camera for instance.
-h
-
Every time I see a misleading post in here, I will try to make a polite reply that helps the reader steer away.
If you don't like being questioned or being quoted, my best advice would be spending your time elsewhere, using your camera for instance.
-h
Unless you do, please don't quote me back ever again. I don't talk anonymously or share photographic discussion with non-photographers. Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
As before, Theodoros, when you make false claims and parade your opinions as facts ... you will be challenged.
Count on it.
-
The only thing that I am saying is that the linear raws that result from the analog to digital conversion, have compressed highlights and shadows, ie they are a linearized S-slope, that tries to behave like film was, its obvious when you open the files on your raw converter, just observe a high contrast scene carefully. This is different to the latitude that the data may have which allows us to produce a new S-slope during PP (D/A conversion). Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Theodoros,
it seems to me that your repeated claims are your unqiue POV. You are using the some key concepts in sloppy terms.
- The operation of the imager is linear. The number of electrons produced is directly proportional to number of photons recorded.
- The A/D conversion of basically all CMOS and CCD cameras is linear. There used to be in the past logarithmically A/D converters around. Bascially all of them have been replaced by linear A/D converters with higher resolution (to provide enough precision in later software based mapping if needed). To my knowledge an A/D converter with a mixture of a log function at the edge and linear for the center range never existed. You can for sure point to some URLs of product sheets to prove the argument you are making.
- Your argument about the raw converter lacks precision. The RAW file opened by the RAW converter contains linear per sensel data points from the imager and A/D conversion. Added with some metadata (like QE, spectral imformation of the bayer filter, etc ...), a RAW converter is able to convert during the demosaic process the linear information to a model with a S-slope. The S-slope is only created after the demosaic process and hence is not part of what most people treat as the information in the RAW file produced by the imager and A/D converter.
- One of the few RAW converters able to allow a look at the RAW data BEFORE the demosaic process convertes them is "dcraw" with the options -D and -4
Looking forward to see your external sources, or personal analysis to understand your view. Please be so kind and don't repeat your claims again - we read them already and like to move to the next stage.
rgds,
Andy
-
Unless you do, please don't quote me back ever again. I don't talk anonymously or share photographic discussion with non-photographers. Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Fotometria,
Without questioning your intellectual superiority, do you think it could make sense to assess the possibility that the rest of the World may be right? :-)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Theodoros,
it seems to me that your repeated claims are your unqiue POV. You are using the some key concepts in sloppy terms.
- The operation of the imager is linear. The number of electrons produced is directly proportional to number of photons recorded.
- The A/D conversion of basically all CMOS and CCD cameras is linear. There used to be in the past logarithmically A/D converters around. Bascially all of them have been replaced by linear A/D converters with higher resolution (to provide enough precision in later software based mapping if needed). To my knowledge an A/D converter with a mixture of a log function at the edge and linear for the center range never existed. You can for sure point to some URLs of product sheets to prove the argument you are making.
- Your argument about the raw converter lacks precision. The RAW file opened by the RAW converter contains linear per sensel data points from the imager and A/D conversion. Added with some metadata (like QE, spectral imformation of the bayer filter, etc ...), a RAW converter is able to convert during the demosaic process the linear information to a model with a S-slope. The S-slope is only created after the demosaic process and hence is not part of what most people treat as the information in the RAW file produced by the imager and A/D converter.
- One of the few RAW converters able to allow a look at the RAW data BEFORE the demosaic process convertes them is "dcraw" with the options -D and -4
Looking forward to see your external sources, or personal analysis to understand your view. Please be so kind and don't repeat your claims again - we read them already and like to move to the next stage.
rgds,
Andy
Andy do you question that some pixels of a sensor can be directed to reject a number of photons in a way that saturatated input to the A/D converter can be prevented or delayed? Do you question that some other pixels can be directed to amplify (with noise of course) the light that they receive?
If you don't question that the above can be easily done, wouldn't the application of both the above result in raws being a linearized result of an S-slope? Please be careful, I am not asking you about your opinion if it happens (we'll come to this later) nor the above has anything to do with linear or not A/D convertors. Its a simple question if it can be done easily. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Fotometria,
Without questioning your intellectual superiority, do you think it could make sense to assess the possibility that the rest of the World may be right? :-)
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, please look above to number 77, it's a question (or two) for you as well. I don't believe that the "rest of the world" would disagree in whether saturation and noise can be "tweeked" before the information enters the A/D converter nor they would disagree that this wouldn't affect the linearity of the Raw files, since the a/d converter would assume that the input that its allowed to "see" is the whole input. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Hi,
The sensor is essentially a device that collects photons, converts them to free electrons and stores the electrons in small capacitor. At readout the voltage over the capacitors is measured (on CMOS) or the electrons themselves be shifted out and electron charge measured (in CCD). The sensors are linear devices, little can be done about that. The signal can be amplified before Analog Digital Conversion (ADC).
It would be feasible to have nonlinear amplification, but it would make little sense as the ADC-s used span a greater range than SNR (Signal Noise Ratio).
All measured data I have seen on RAW files was linear.
Best regards
Erik
Andy do you question that some pixels of a sensor can be directed to reject a number of photons in a way that saturatated input to the A/D converter can be prevented or delayed? Do you question that some other pixels can be directed to amplify (with noise of course) the light that they receive?
If you don't question that the above can be easily done, wouldn't the application of both the above result in raws being a linearized result of an S-slope? Please be careful, I am not asking you about your opinion if it happens (we'll come to this later) nor the above has anything to do with linear or not A/D convertors. Its a simple question if it can be done easily. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Hi,
The sensor is essentially a device that collects photons, converts them to free electrons and stores the electrons in small capacitor. At readout the voltage over the capacitors is measured (on CMOS) or the electrons themselves be shifted out and electron charge measured (in CCD). The sensors are linear devices, little can be done about that. The signal can be amplified before Analog Digital Conversion (ADC).
It would be feasible to have nonlinear amplification, but it would make little sense as the ADC-s used span a greater range than SNR (Signal Noise Ratio).
All measured data I have seen on RAW files was linear.
Best regards
Erik
OK Eric! I'll stay with "it's feasible" and remind you of the transistors that each pixel carries before the capacitor. Can they be "tweeked"/directed so that the output that they supply to the capacitor is the desired? "Of course" is the obvious answer. What "makes little sense" as you correctly state has to do with SNR which are pixels that carry low light info, it makes great sense to use negative amplification to those pixels that are saturated or approach saturation. Of course there was no need to add the last statement, that "Raw files carry linear data", it was never the question, I'll just remind you that "linearized" will be measured as linear. Best regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Guys, if you go into your profile there is a setting under 'personal message preferences' to ignore PM's from certain users. That will also automatically hide their uninformed troll posts throughout the forum. Just sayin'...
-
Taking a linearised cross tangent, and an s-curve over the reverse strile, and Mornington Crescent! I win!
Oops. Wrong forum
-
Guys, if you go into your profile there is a setting under 'personal message preferences' to ignore PM's from certain users. That will also automatically hide their uninformed troll posts throughout the forum. Just sayin'...
Thanks for the tip, Ben. It works!
I never checked that preference because I assumed it only worked on PMs rather than posts.
Eric
-
OK Eric! I'll stay with "it's feasible" and remind you of the transistors that each pixel carries before the capacitor. Can they be "tweeked"/directed so that the output that they supply to the capacitor is the desired? "Of course" is the obvious answer. What "makes little sense" as you correctly state has to do with SNR which are pixels that carry low light info, it makes great sense to use negative amplification to those pixels that are saturated or approach saturation. Of course there was no need to add the last statement, that "Raw files carry linear data", it was never the question, I'll just remind you that "linearized" will be measured as linear. Best regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
You have multiple times posted comments that many readers have interpreted as you claiming that digital raw files does not contain linear measurements of light. You may talk about perception and tweaking and s-curves and "feasibilities" all you like, the bottom line is that raw files are usually linear measurements of light according to any source but you. You have had multiple chances to clear up all of the confusion, but rather you choose to take this personal, or continue filling the forum with unsupported controversial claims. This means that the reader simply cannot take anything you say seriously. Best case it is your choice of translator that make you insightful, polite Greek into meaningless gobble-talk in English.
-h
-
Guys, if you go into your profile there is a setting under 'personal message preferences' to ignore PM's from certain users. That will also automatically hide their uninformed troll posts throughout the forum. Just sayin'...
Thank you for this tips.
-h
-
Back to the topic ... My dream kit for landscape would be:
- D800 with 36MP
- 16-35mm VR
- 50mm AFS
- 70-200mm VRII
I have the older version of all four items and would love to upgrade the whole kit.
-
You have multiple times posted comments that many readers have interpreted as you claiming that digital raw files does not contain linear measurements of light. You may talk about perception and tweaking and s-curves and "feasibilities" all you like, the bottom line is that raw files are usually linear measurements of light according to any source but you. You have had multiple chances to clear up all of the confusion, but rather you choose to take this personal, or continue filling the forum with unsupported controversial claims. This means that the reader simply cannot take anything you say seriously. Best case it is your choice of translator that make you insightful, polite Greek into meaningless gobble-talk in English.
-h
Unless you do state, your name, occupation and submit your photography, you are politely asked (this is the fourth time), not to refer to me, use my name or twist any subject I 've commented about, I don't talk anonymously or share a photographic discussion with non-photographers! This is because I know that many unoccupied crooks, have made web an occupation and are creating MULTIPLE PROFILES AS THEIR CLONE just to attract possible victims. Especially for (the real) you, since I know your occupation (aren't you working on a circus?), either your name is Jeremy or Theodoros or other, I suggest you KEEP the CLONE MASK, remove the CLOWN MASK and start again with a new CLONE NAME. Its a trusted method AMONG CROOKS. For the rest that may be reading, look back to the forum, it can only be beneficial on the crap you may be fed on the web. Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Unless you do state, your name, occupation and submit your photography, you are politely asked (this is the fourth time), not to refer to me, use my name or twist any subject I 've commented about, I don't talk anonymously or share a photographic discussion with non-photographers! This is because I know that many unoccupied crooks, have made web an occupation and are creating MULTIPLE PROFILES AS THEIR CLONE just to attract possible victims. Especially for (the real) you, since I know your occupation (aren't you working on a circus?), either your name is Jeremy or Theodoros or other, I suggest you KEEP the CLONE MASK, remove the CLOWN MASK and start again with a new CLONE NAME. Its a trusted method AMONG CROOKS. For the rest that may be reading, look back to the forum, it can only be beneficial on the crap you may be fed on the web. Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Wow. Trolling, much?
-
Wow. Trolling, much?
Anything on the subject?
-
Unless you do state, your name, occupation and submit your photography, you are politely asked (this is the fourth time), not to refer to me, use my name or twist any subject I 've commented about, I don't talk anonymously or share a photographic discussion with non-photographers! This is because I know that many unoccupied crooks, have made web an occupation and are creating MULTIPLE PROFILES AS THEIR CLONE just to attract possible victims. Especially for (the real) you, since I know your occupation (aren't you working on a circus?), either your name is Jeremy or Theodoros or other, I suggest you KEEP the CLONE MASK, remove the CLOWN MASK and start again with a new CLONE NAME. Its a trusted method AMONG CROOKS. For the rest that may be reading, look back to the forum, it can only be beneficial on the crap you may be fed on the web. Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
You are politely asked to refrain from making ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims.
If you do, people will challenge you. If you don't rise to the challenge and present evidence and logical arguments, people will have no choice but to consider YOU the clown.
-
You are politely asked to refrain from making ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims.
If you do, people will challenge you. If you don't rise to the challenge and present evidence and logical arguments, people will have no choice but to consider YOU the clown.
Now I know his real name... and his photography! Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
The RAW file opened by the RAW converter contains linear per sensel data points from the imager and A/D conversion.
however raw file is created by camera's firmware and sometimes the data there might not be what you think
http://blog.lexa.ru/2011/11/10/o_lineinosti_raw_nikon_d5x00.html
http://blog.lexa.ru/2011/10/28/o_lineinosti_raw_i_ettr.html
translate.google.com is your friend.
-
however raw file is created by camera's firmware and sometimes the data there might not be what you think
http://blog.lexa.ru/2011/11/10/o_lineinosti_raw_nikon_d5x00.html
http://blog.lexa.ru/2011/10/28/o_lineinosti_raw_i_ettr.html
translate.google.com is your friend.
+1. Thanks, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
P.S. "The rest of the world" may not be that ...much!
-
Andy do you question that some pixels of a sensor can be directed to reject a number of photons in a way that saturatated input to the A/D converter can be prevented or delayed? Do you question that some other pixels can be directed to amplify (with noise of course) the light that they receive?
If you don't question that the above can be easily done, wouldn't the application of both the above result in raws being a linearized result of an S-slope? Please be careful, I am not asking you about your opinion if it happens (we'll come to this later) nor the above has anything to do with linear or not A/D convertors. Its a simple question if it can be done easily. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Theodore,
can you please answer my questions - They are very simple.
With regards to yours: The answer for the real & mass market = No (as of today).
I'm not interested what is possible in theory, in a laboratory or in a niche market - it is not what this discussion is about.
Thanks,
Andy
-
Theodore,
can you please answer my questions - They are very simple.
With regards to yours: The answer for the real & mass market = No (as of today).
I'm not interested what is possible in theory, in a laboratory or in a niche market - it is not what this discussion is about.
Thanks,
Andy
With all respect Andreas, I will insist that you answer mine first (I mean a straight answer not some ....politics or in what you are interested on), I am not talking for any possible market, It's about what happens TODAY, it's only that the manufacturers (and technology) needs perfection.... and we are not that close to it because of the megapixel war, ....that some are mindlessly trying to support! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
P.S. The discussion was about if highlight DR exists or not (which is a crucial factor in whether we need 36mpx cameras or not).
-
With all respect Andreas, I will insist that you answer mine first (I mean a straight answer not some ....politics or in what you are interested on), I am not talking for any possible market, It's about what happens TODAY, it's only that the manufacturers (and technology) needs perfection.... and we are not that close to it because of the megapixel war, ....that some are mindlessly trying to support! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
P.S. The discussion was about if highlight DR exists or not (which is a crucial factor in whether we need 36mpx cameras or not).
He answered you.
The utility of 36MP has nothing to do with your confused notions of "highlight DR".
I have created plenty of 30-60MP files by stitching my D700 and can see noticeable differences between prints from those files and prints from single 12MP shots. 36MP will be very useful.
-
While I know photometria can be both a genuine and an accidental pain, I wouldn't dismiss categorically all that he is saying. The "pure raw" data is usually obtained from well characterized CCDs. It's very hard to obtain "pure raw data" from a CMOS sensor, especially an active one like the current Sony. The content of Nikon RAW dslr files has always been post-processed to some extent, as all amateur astronomers using DSLRs for astrophotography know (http://astrosurf.com/buil/nikon_test/test.htm). In addition to that, the current Sony sensors perform per pixel calibration and, while it is not possible to dynamically change the fundamental collection of photons at a given sensels, it is quite possible to pre-charge the sensel depletion zone and change the linearity of its response (that's one example, not a claim that they do it, in its sensor briefs Sony mixes genuinely interesting information with pure marketing). Whether it is only done at the individual sensel level to handle non uniformity or it is also done at the global level to achieve some kind of in-sensor HDR equivalent is a tough question, deserving a deeper investigation than casual dismissal. Whether all of this matters a lot for most photographic applications is another question, maybe not as tough if one sees the camera as a whole as a black box.
-
While I know photometria can be both a genuine and an accidental pain, I wouldn't dismiss categorically all that he is saying. The "pure raw" data is usually obtained from well characterized CCDs. It's very hard to obtain "pure raw data" from a CMOS sensor, especially an active one like the current Sony. The content of Nikon RAW dslr files has always been post-processed to some extent, as all amateur astronomers using DSLRs for astrophotography know (http://astrosurf.com/buil/nikon_test/test.htm). In addition to that, the current Sony sensors perform per pixel calibration and, while it is not possible to dynamically change the fundamental collection of photons at a given sensels, it is quite possible to pre-charge the sensel depletion zone and change the linearity of its response (that's one example, not a claim that they do it, in its sensor briefs Sony mixes genuinely interesting information with pure marketing). Whether it is only done at the individual sensel level to handle non uniformity or it is also done at the global level to achieve some kind of in-sensor HDR equivalent is a tough question, deserving a deeper investigation than casual dismissal. Whether all of this matters a lot for most photographic applications is another question, maybe not as tough if one sees the camera as a whole as a black box.
The "rest of the world" is even smaller, in a while it will be a minority. By the way, the name is "fotometria" not "photometria". Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
But you are stitching FF sensor captures. We want to find out how useful it will be to cram 36mp inside one single FF sensor.
I haven't read all posts. I apologize beforehand if I'm missing something here. :D
Eduardo
I have created plenty of 30-60MP files by stitching my D700 and can see noticeable differences between prints from those files and prints from single 12MP shots. 36MP will be very useful.
-
But you are stitching FF sensor captures. We want to find out how useful it will be to cram 36mp inside one single FF sensor.
I heven't read all posts. Sorry if I missing something here. :D
Eduardo
Fair enough ... But the D7000 is essentially the cropped version of this mythical sensor so we do have a very good guide as to how this new camera might perform at the pixel level.
A 36mp version of that sensor is a very attractive concept.
-
if one sees the camera as a whole as a black box.
actually one black box wrapped in another black box (that will be a raw converter).
-
While I know photometria can be both a genuine and an accidental pain, I wouldn't dismiss categorically all that he is saying. The "pure raw" data is usually obtained from well characterized CCDs. It's very hard to obtain "pure raw data" from a CMOS sensor, especially an active one like the current Sony. The content of Nikon RAW dslr files has always been post-processed to some extent, as all amateur astronomers using DSLRs for astrophotography know (http://astrosurf.com/buil/nikon_test/test.htm). In addition to that, the current Sony sensors perform per pixel calibration and, while it is not possible to dynamically change the fundamental collection of photons at a given sensels, it is quite possible to pre-charge the sensel depletion zone and change the linearity of its response (that's one example, not a claim that they do it, in its sensor briefs Sony mixes genuinely interesting information with pure marketing). Whether it is only done at the individual sensel level to handle non uniformity or it is also done at the global level to achieve some kind of in-sensor HDR equivalent is a tough question, deserving a deeper investigation than casual dismissal. Whether all of this matters a lot for most photographic applications is another question, maybe not as tough if one sees the camera as a whole as a black box.
Yes, we do of course know that camera firmware does process data coming out of sensors.
But that taken into account, the measurement of incident light vs raw data is still linear with a clear cut off at saturation.
So the fact remains that there is no highlight DR.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Back to the topic ... My dream kit for landscape would be:
- D800 with 36MP
- 16-35mm VR
- 50mm AFS
- 70-200mm VRII
As long as we talk rumors, I would replace the 70-200 f2.8 by the rumors 70-200 f4. ;D
I would also use a Zeiss ZF.2 50mm f2 planar instead of the Nikon as it is both superior optically and offers macro capability.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As long as we talk rumors, I would replace the 70-200 f2.8 by the rumors 70-200 f4. ;D
I would also use a Zeiss ZF.2 50mm f2 planar instead of the Nikon as it is both superior optically and offers macro capability.
Cheers,
Bernard
Hadn't heard about the f.4 ... if true, that means they are really listening!
Let's throw the 100mm ZF in while we are at it.
I also think there is place in bag for both the 50 ZF and the 50 AFS. The utility of auto-focus is hard to replace, but there is also something very nice about composing and focusing manually via Live View.
Bernard - do you use any kind of hood or magnifier when you take the D3x in the field and use Live View?
-
Hadn't heard about the f.4 ... if true, that means they are really listening!
Let's throw the 100mm ZF in while we are at it.
I also think there is place in bag for both the 50 ZF and the 50 AFS. The utility of auto-focus is hard to replace, but there is also something very nice about composing and focusing manually via Live View.
Bernard - do you use any kind of hood or magnifier when you take the D3x in the field and use Live View?
Jeremy,
Yep, I use the 100 zf a lot and it is a great lens.
AF does for sure help at times, but the ease if manual focus with the Zeiss ZF series is just wonderful with live view.
I sold the D3x 2 months ago before it lost too much value, but never used a hood on it.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, we do of course know that camera firmware does process data coming out of sensors.
But that taken into account, the measurement of incident light vs raw data is still linear with a clear cut off at saturation.
So the fact remains that there is no highlight DR.
Cheers,
Bernard
There isn't when processing the file Bernard, it can only be manipulated there if it exists, but since the linear Raw is a linearized S-slope, highlight DR exists when capturing, which of course is relevant to the OP. The size of the pixel does affect saturation and thus the recording of highlights. That's why people talk about a camera being better in highlights than another camera when they refer to the matter. The difference in highlights between sensors in Highlight DR can, to a lesser extend, appear in JPEGs as well, its a sensor and in camera processor ability not a raw matter. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
As long as we talk rumors, I would replace the 70-200 f2.8 by the rumors 70-200 f4.
As long as we are talking rumours:
1. The 3x zoom range limitation seems mostly to apply to bright constant f/2.8 designs; there are optically good f/4, f/2.8-4 and f/2.8-3.5 zoom lenses around with 4x and even 5x zoom range.
2. There is little modern need for a constant but not very fast minimum f-stop, now that the f-stop can be held constant through zooming on a variable minimum f-stop zoom lens so long as the desired aperture/focal length combination exists. So I see no advantage for constant f/4 over something like f/2.8-4. Not even in size, weight or cost, since that is dominated by the maximum aperture diameter needed at the long end.
So I offer an upgraded rumour of a 70-300 or 75-300, f/2.8-4.
At least, that is what I think Nikon (and Canon) should be offering us, instead of this bizarre drop from f/2.8 at the long end to f/5.6 at the long end as soon as the long end is beyond 200mm. (With the exception of one fantastically expensive 200-400/4)
-
Hi,
You could of course post a raw image showing a Stouffer Wedge (I prefer the 41 step variant going up D 4.1). The Stouffer wedge can be ordered from Stouffer directly, cost around 35-40€.
Here is what I have observed on the Stouffer Wedge:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/56-an-lr-view-of-the-stouffer-wedge?showall=1
By the way, I am the OP (Original Poster) and the OP (Original Posting) was not about DR but resolution.
Best regards
Erik
There isn't when processing the file Bernard, it can only be manipulated there if it exists, but since the linear Raw is a linearized S-slope, highlight DR exists when capturing, which of course is relevant to the OP. The size of the pixel does affect saturation and thus the recording of highlights. That's why people talk about a camera being better in highlights than another camera when they refer to the matter. The difference in highlights between sensors in Highlight DR can, to a lesser extend, appear in JPEGs as well, its a sensor and in camera processor ability not a raw matter. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
By the way, I am the OP (Original Poster) and the OP (Original Posting) was not about DR but resolution.
Best regards
Erik
"Which is of course RELEVANT to the OP. THE SIZE OF THE PIXEL does affect saturation and thus the recording of highlights."
This is exactly my statement Erik, read it again. Is the size of the pixel irrelevant to resolution? Regards, Theodoros.
-
"Which is of course RELEVANT to the OP. THE SIZE OF THE PIXEL does affect saturation and thus the recording of highlights."
This is exactly my statement Erik, read it again. Is the size of the pixel irrelevant to resolution? Regards, Theodoros.
I read your post. As usual, it makes little sense and is filled with inaccuracies.
RAW files from real digital cameras are not "linearized" ... The data within them represents the linear response of the sensels to photons hitting them. Photons hit the sensels, the sensels generate electrons and those electrons are counted. The relationship between photons hitting the sensel and the count of electrons recorded is linear. There is no s-slope, there is no "linearization".
You are wrong ... Plain and simple.
-
I read your post. As usual, it makes little sense and is filled with inaccuracies.
RAW files from real digital cameras are not "linearized" ... The data within them represents the linear response of the sensels to photons hitting them. Photons hit the sensels, the sensels generate electrons and those electrons are counted. The relationship between photons hitting the sensel and the count of electrons recorded is linear. There is no s-slope, there is no "linearization".
You are wrong ... Plain and simple.
I know what you believe, there is no need to repeat it to me all the time, try somebody else, there plenty that agree with me. It seems that the processor in your camera is doing a different thing than it does in mine (same camera). Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
... there plenty that agree with me ...
There are not "plenty of people that agree" with you.
Furthermore, you have offered no evidence - or even a coherent argument - to support your claim.
-
There are not "plenty of people that agree" with you.
Furthermore, you have offered no evidence - or even a coherent argument - to support your claim.
That's why I insist for you to quote others, they have! Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
That's why I insist for you to quote others, they have! Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
In your fantasy world, maybe ... but in the real world where the rest of us live, your claims remain unsubstantiated.
-
In your fantasy world, maybe ... but in the real world where the rest of us live, your claims remain unsubstantiated.
3RD time, find somebody else to quote... Theodoros, www.fotometria.gr
-
3RD time, find somebody else to quote... Theodoros, www.fotometria.gr
Given the nature of your posts, you will have to live with being questioned and quoted. Don't like it? Fine, then start posting less controversial posts or take some photographs.
-h
-
Hi,
It does actually not. Shrinking the pixel will reduce FWC (Full Well Capacity) but we are getting more pixels. The number of photons reaching the sensor will be the same and highlight rendition will therefore not be affected. Readout noise is not effected by pixel size, so having large pixels has an advantage for rendition of the darks, but highlights are not affected.
Best regards
Erik
"Which is of course RELEVANT to the OP. THE SIZE OF THE PIXEL does affect saturation and thus the recording of highlights."
-
Given the nature of your posts, you will have to live with being questioned and quoted. Don't like it? Fine, then start posting less controversial posts or take some photographs.
-h
Your name and photography please? I don't talk anonymously neither share a photographic discussion with non-photographers. The reason for this, has been well explaned in your previous quote to me. Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Your name and photography please? I don't talk anonymously neither share a photographic discussion with non-photographers. The reason for this, has been well explaned in your previous quote to me. Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
I use this on another forum (rationalskepticism.org) when situations demand it. This just seems like one of those times ...
(http://pidge2571.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/img_girl_pointing.jpg)
-
Hi,
It does actually not. Shrinking the pixel will reduce FWC (Full Well Capacity) but we are getting more pixels. The number of photons reaching the sensor will be the same and highlight rendition will therefore not be affected. Readout noise is not effected by pixel size, so having large pixels has an advantage for rendition of the darks, but highlights are not affected.
Best regards
Erik
That's one way to look at it Erik, but I have a different opinion, let me explain: 1. The photons reaching the sensor will be the same, but the absorb of them will not be the same because you shrink the entrance of each pixel by a good amount, especially for those pixels that receive light in an angle, then you have the boundaries between the pixels to the equation and of course the circular area that fits in each square pixel shrinks. 2. The lesser amount of photons that enter the pixel makes the linearization of highlights much more difficult and less accurate, because its much more difficult and less accurate to group them and redirect the transistors of the pixel as the photons come, if you have a larger quantity of photons, accuracy improves a lot because the small mistakes that will inevitably exist, refer to much larger quantities and thus are not so obvious in the data. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
That's one way to look at it Erik, but I have a different opinion, let me explain: 1. The photons reaching the sensor will be the same, but the absorb of them will not be the same because you shrink the entrance of each pixel by a good amount, especially for those pixels that receive light in an angle, then you have the boundaries between the pixels to the equation and of course the circular area that fits in each square pixel shrinks. 2. The lesser amount of photons that enter the pixel makes the linearization of highlights much more difficult and less accurate, because its much more difficult and less accurate to group them and redirect the transistors of the pixel as the photons come, if you have a larger quantity of photons, accuracy improves a lot because the small mistakes that will inevitably exist, refer to much larger quantities and thus are not so obvious in the data. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
I should have added to the second of the above that the manipulation of the highlights, doesn't occur only when the pixel is fully saturated but to different extends, depending on the number of photons that have entered it during the exposure, from the point that the manufacturer has chosen to apply negative amplification and up to saturation the in between quantities of photons are manipulated with different negative amplification, this is where accuracy is involved and it affects the quality of the highlights (the less the errors, the better the quality), have you noticed for example how much better the quality of the highlights is on a D700 than a D7000, although the later has a much better processor? Thus, its best to advance resolution more in the future and concentrate to address the rest of the problems first. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
I should have added to the second of the above that the manipulation of the highlights, doesn't occur only when the pixel is fully saturated but to different extends, depending on the number of photons that have entered it during the exposure, from the point that the manufacturer has chosen to apply negative amplification and up to saturation the in between quantities of photons are manipulated with different negative amplification, this is where accuracy is involved and it affects the quality of the highlights (the less the errors, the better the quality)
Sorry, bud .... but there ain't a real digital camera that works like that. Can you show evidence or cite a source to substantiate that claim?
Also, it would make no sense given the fact you have already admitted that the data in a RAW digital camera file is "linear". Can you explain why it would be necessary to jump through all of these hoops only to have a linear response captured at the end?
Please show us the evidence that supports this claim ... it should be simple for someone so knowledgeable and intellectually facile as yourself ... this is important and critical as the other posts on this thread that you believe support your position, in fact, do not.
-
Sorry, bud .... but there ain't a real digital camera that works like that. Can you show evidence or cite a source to substantiate that claim?
Also, it would make no sense given the fact you have already admitted that the data in a RAW digital camera file is "linear". Can you explain why it would be necessary to jump through all of these hoops only to have a linear response captured at the end?
Please show us the evidence that supports this claim ... it should be simple for someone so knowledgeable and intellectually facile as yourself ... this is important and critical as the other posts on this thread that you believe support your position, in fact, do not.
4TH time. Refer to no:113 above. Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
4TH time. Refer to no:113 above. Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
We can then only assume that you have invented this story to amuse us and are not capable of defending the position with evidence or logical reasoning.
Frankly, we all knew that days ago ... but this has been fun.
Thanks for playing!
-
We can then only assume that you have invented this story to amuse us and are not capable of defending the position with evidence or logical reasoning.
Frankly, we all knew that days ago ... but this has been fun.
Thanks for playing!
5TH time! Refer to no 113 above. Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
5TH time! Refer to no 113 above. Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Sorry, bud ... you don't make the rules.
I'll "quote you" as often as I like ... and there ain't nothing you can do about it ... except stop making ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims.
-
Sorry, bud ... you don't make the rules.
I'll "quote you" as often as I like ... and there ain't nothing you can do about it ... except stop making ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims.
When GOD was raining brains..., some people where holding an umbrella! Theodoros, www.fotometria.gr
-
I should have added to the second of the above that the manipulation of the highlights, doesn't occur only when the pixel is fully saturated but to different extends, depending on the number of photons that have entered it during the exposure, from the point that the manufacturer has chosen to apply negative amplification and up to saturation the in between quantities of photons are manipulated with different negative amplification, this is where accuracy is involved and it affects the quality of the highlights (the less the errors, the better the quality), have you noticed for example how much better the quality of the highlights is on a D700 than a D7000, although the later has a much better processor? Thus, its best to advance resolution more in the future and concentrate to address the rest of the problems first. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Honestly, I can't read anything you've written in this thread. This one (quoted above) is pretty much one long run-on sentence with no grammatical coherence. It isn't your knowledge of English that's the problem, but the way you try to package up your ideas.
Are you suggesting that there are circuits for compressing highlights during exposure through negative feedback? And is this evidence of non-linearity in the sensor response? I guess I'd want a further source.
-
Sorry, bud ... you don't make the rules.
I'll "quote you" as often as I like ... and there ain't nothing you can do about it ... except stop making ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims.
Apparently you need to tell him your name & show him some photos. Or something.
-
When GOD was raining brains..., some people where holding an umbrella! Theodoros, www.fotometria.gr
I don't see why you need to resort to ad hominem attacks ... I'm also not clear on the cosmological origins of this notion ... God rained brains? In what tradition does one find this myth? Sounds interesting.
If you are right, the easiest thing for you to do would be prove it.
-
Back to the topic ... My dream kit for landscape would be:
- D800 with 36MP
- 16-35mm VR
- 50mm AFS
- 70-200mm VRII
I have the older version of all four items and would love to upgrade the whole kit.
........ ;) www.fotometria.gr
-
Apparently you need to tell him your name & show him some photos. Or something.
No... I've seen his photography... and his name (twice.. he has more than one). Did you see mine? I'd like a comment... promise you..., no bad feelings, ..it's your neck! You may say whatever you want, I wan't reply... I promise! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Not so fast, Theo - if, in fact, that is your real name ...
It was YOU who changed the subject BACK to your controversial claims in your response to Erik.
Rather than throw insults and try and change the subject .... Why don't you simply respond with facts, evidence and logical reasoning?
-
No... I've seen his photography... and his name (twice.. he has more than one).
There's just one "me".
-
Honestly, I can't read anything you've written in this thread. This one (quoted above) is pretty much one long run-on sentence with no grammatical coherence. It isn't your knowledge of English that's the problem, but the way you try to package up your ideas.
Are you suggesting that there are circuits for compressing highlights during exposure through negative feedback? And is this evidence of non-linearity in the sensor response? I guess I'd want a further source.
I know its difficult..., its twenty five years I finished my degree and at those days I used to think in English, ...now I have to think in my original language and then translate. I think you may succeed if you try a bit more..., others have..., (not without struggle!). Sorry for the inconvenience! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Not so fast, Theo - if, in fact, that is your real name ...
It was YOU who changed the subject BACK to your controversial claims in your response to Erik.
Rather than throw insults and try and change the subject .... Why don't you simply respond with facts, evidence and logical reasoning?
It can go even faster if you wish.. The name is not Theo... it's THEODOROS! "Logical reasoning?"... to a person that didn't even notice the weather when it was raining brains? You have been submitted all the evidence that you want from other people and you was politely asked not to quote me back... I remind you that I HAVE NEVER STARTED A CONVERSATION WITH YOU, ...on the other hand its my choice to avoid anybody I don't like (indeed people that have declared themselves as... "accidental artists"), that keep coming to me uninvited although they have been politely asked not to... I am sorry you are not going to have your 36mpx D800 or whatever the D700 replacement name will be (not for a long time anyway in this market segment), but I am sure you will have a 36mpx sensor, in a segment much higher than the one you want, I am sure it will improve ::) ...your photography :'( (?) Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
You have been submitted all the evidence that you want from other people
That is simply not the case.
Nobody - not you nor anyone else - has submitted evidence to support your claims.
-
That is simply not the case.
Nobody - not you nor anyone else - has submitted evidence to support your claims.
I'd have to agree with that.
Our Greek friend has still not replied to the following question: how do you explain that the data inside the raw files is linear relative to the illumination reaching the sensor?
His esoteric theories about amplification etc... could possibly be true. BUT, if they were true, they would translate into non linearity in the data stored in the raw file relative to incoming illumination.
In reality, these non linearities are simply not there.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
...I don't talk anonymously or share a photographic discussion with non-photographers! This is because I know that many unoccupied crooks, have made web an occupation and are creating MULTIPLE PROFILES AS THEIR CLONE just to attract possible victims. Especially for (the real) you, since I know your occupation (aren't you working on a circus?), either your name is Jeremy or Theodoros or other, I suggest you KEEP the CLONE MASK, remove the CLOWN MASK and start again with a new CLONE NAME. Its a trusted method AMONG CROOKS....
When GOD was raining brains..., some people where holding an umbrella! Theodoros, www.fotometria.gr
I have asked the moderator to delete the most childish personal attacks from fotometria. Calling people crooks and implying that God did not equip them with brains is not how grown-up people should discuss photography in my view. Calling fellow lula members "non-photographers" does not help the discussion.
The question shouldn't be on what the sensor does but whether some pixels are directed to subtract some of the photons that hit them or some others are directed to amplify the light received (with noise of course).
If you don't want to tell us what you are claiming, can you please stop claiming that digital raw files have s-curves, shoulders, or similar things?
Can I please know your real name and occupation? I 'd like to know who I am talking with...
I am sorry, no
Unless you do, please don't quote me back ever again. I don't talk anonymously or share photographic discussion with non-photographers. Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
5TH time! Refer to no 113 above. Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
I will quote your misleading posts anytime I feel that is warranted. As long as you post, anyone can reply. Don't like it? Fine, stop making erroneous statements in a public forum...
and can you direct me to see some of your photography in the web? Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Sure:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=57543.0
-h
-
I'd have to agree with that.
Our Greek friend has still not replied to the following question: how do you explain that the data inside the raw files is linear relative to the illumination reaching the sensor?
His esoteric theories about amplification etc... could possibly be true. BUT, if they were true, they would translate into non linearity in the data stored in the raw file relative to incoming illumination.
In reality, these non linearities are simply not there.
Cheers,
Bernard
But I have Bernard, its not linear relative to the illumination that reaches the sensor, its linear to the illumination that the sensor records! Make a simple test, I think this may convince you: Choose a high contrast scene on a bright sunny day, a scene that includes the sun in your frame, use your D7000 at 100iso and fit a most resistant to flare lens, like the old 12-24DX or a zeiss, now with the camera set in manual make 21 different exposures, one at 1/250 - f8.0, ten overexposing that a stop at a time and another 10 underexposing a stop at a time (8stops until1/8000 f22 and for the last 2 use a -1 and -2 filter). Shoot that in Raw+jpeg, now go back and open the files with NX2.2 and do not apply anything to them, make sure you keep the exposure graph linear. Now starting with the +10stops blown image watch carefully each next image towards under exposure and compare it to the previous one. You may notice the following: 1. At the blown image nothing behaves linearly to the next stop. 2. When some of the image scene enters linearity as you move towards the under exposed images, the highlights still don't behave linearly. 3. When a part of the image exits linearity towards the shadows, it starts resisting to disappear and starts not to behave linearly. 4. When the actual planet of the sun starts forming its spherical shape from the glare around it (at around -2 to -3stops from f8.0, 1/250 depending on the atmosphere's level of humidity) it makes very little difference when you underexpose another stop, while if you still have correctly exposed parts of the scene, they do behave linearly. 5. If you apply -1 stop of digital underexposure from the Raw converter to the previous condition (no. 4) the image doesn't respond the same as when it was shot by another stop of underexposure, only the "mid" part of it does! 6. You can't make the sun disappear or behave linearly not even if you go to the mostly underexposed of your images, its still on the highlights! In fact it won't disappear even if it was -20 stops from 1/250, f8.0! Believe me I've done it! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
But I have Bernard, its not linear relative to the illumination that reaches the sensor, its linear to the illumination that the sensor records! Make a simple test, I think this may convince you: Choose a high contrast scene on a bright sunny day, a scene that includes the sun in your frame, use your D7000 at 100iso and fit a most resistant to flare lens, like the old 12-24DX or a zeiss, now with the camera set in manual make 21 different exposures, one at 1/250 - f8.0, ten overexposing that a stop at a time and another 10 underexposing a stop at a time (8stops until1/8000 f22 and for the last 2 use a -1 and -2 filter). Shoot that in Raw+jpeg, now go back and open the files with NX2.2 and do not apply anything to them, make sure you keep the exposure graph linear. Now starting with the +10stops blown image watch carefully each next image towards under exposure and compare it to the previous one. You may notice the following: 1. At the blown image nothing behaves linearly to the next stop. 2. When some of the image scene enters linearity as you move towards the under exposed images, the highlights still don't behave linearly. 3. When a part of the image exits linearity towards the shadows, it starts resisting to disappear and starts not to behave linearly. 4. When the actual planet of the sun starts forming its spherical shape from the glare around it (at around -2 to -3stops from f8.0, 1/250 depending on the atmosphere's level of humidity) it makes very little difference when you underexpose another stop, while if you still have correctly expoe sed parts of the scene, they do behave linearly. 5. If you apply -1 stop of digital underexposure from the Raw converter to the previous condition (no. 4) the image doesn't respond the same as when it was shot by another stop of underexposure, only the "mid" part of it does! 6. You can't make the sun disappear or behave linearly not even if you go to the mostly underexposed of your images, its still on the highlights! In fact it won't disappear even if it was -20 stops from 1/250, f8.0! Believe me I've done it! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
I should add to the above that No:5 is the most important, in fact I may suggest a more accurate test: Shoot a backlit grayscale card (like the one they use in DPreview), one with at least 15 stops on it, with + and - 1 stop of exposure, then apply the above test with + and - 1stop of digital exposure compensation on the mid of the 3 raws that will result, when you open it in your raw converter and compare the images that have resulted from digital exposure compensation, to the ones that have been produced be real exposure compensation, it will prove to you that the RAWs that have been recorded during capture were recorded linearly but in reality are linearized, they contain more info than they should in highlights and lowlights respectively (or they lack more info that they should from the other side of the tonal range respectively). Happy new year to everybody, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
This is an interesting and worthwhile debate, but really kids! Time to show some manners.
Either play nicely together or you'll be sent to your rooms (and this thread will be closed).
Michael
-
Hi,
I may try your suggestions, when I have time.
I have done some tests with the Stouffer wedge and found that the response was linear. BUT, the default settings in LR will not give a linear image, and the image will be hard to interpret. I used Imatest for my evaluation and it is presented here:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/56-an-lr-view-of-the-stouffer-wedge?start=2
Anyway, this is a discussion on 36-MP DSLRs and not sensor linearity, so I would strongly suggest that you start a new topic named "Are sensors linear?" or so.
Best regards
Erik
But I have Bernard, its not linear relative to the illumination that reaches the sensor, its linear to the illumination that the sensor records! Make a simple test, I think this may convince you: Choose a high contrast scene on a bright sunny day, a scene that includes the sun in your frame, use your D7000 at 100iso and fit a most resistant to flare lens, like the old 12-24DX or a zeiss, now with the camera set in manual make 21 different exposures, one at 1/250 - f8.0, ten overexposing that a stop at a time and another 10 underexposing a stop at a time (8stops until1/8000 f22 and for the last 2 use a -1 and -2 filter). Shoot that in Raw+jpeg, now go back and open the files with NX2.2 and do not apply anything to them, make sure you keep the exposure graph linear. Now starting with the +10stops blown image watch carefully each next image towards under exposure and compare it to the previous one. You may notice the following: 1. At the blown image nothing behaves linearly to the next stop. 2. When some of the image scene enters linearity as you move towards the under exposed images, the highlights still don't behave linearly. 3. When a part of the image exits linearity towards the shadows, it starts resisting to disappear and starts not to behave linearly. 4. When the actual planet of the sun starts forming its spherical shape from the glare around it (at around -2 to -3stops from f8.0, 1/250 depending on the atmosphere's level of humidity) it makes very little difference when you underexpose another stop, while if you still have correctly exposed parts of the scene, they do behave linearly. 5. If you apply -1 stop of digital underexposure from the Raw converter to the previous condition (no. 4) the image doesn't respond the same as when it was shot by another stop of underexposure, only the "mid" part of it does! 6. You can't make the sun disappear or behave linearly not even if you go to the mostly underexposed of your images, its still on the highlights! In fact it won't disappear even if it was -20 stops from 1/250, f8.0! Believe me I've done it! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
In reality, these non linearities are simply not there.
It's really hard to be categorical on those issues. Really. There is a huge number of things going on in the background at the sensor level and Sony isn't exactly forthcoming with details about the sensors it doesn't sell to the general public/small scale hardware developer. It could vey well be that they combine several exposures in a single one - they do it in some sensors of the Exmor line (possibly all recent sensors). Very roughly, the idea is to take short exposures on the pixels that receive a lot of photons while doing the main exposure and then combining the result. The mecanism is described here in general terms
http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/files/cat/camsec/brochures/prodbroch_viewdr_ve.pdf
Nothing prevents them from doing it multiple times in their DSLR sensors, virtually increasing the well capacity of over exposed pixels, and then massage the result into some linear looking file. It could be possible to test for that by shooting a wide DR scene at 1/1000th of a second and 1/30th of a second: if the second scene has a wider DR towards the highlights, it would show that in-sensor exposure summing is at play. (there may be more to it to create a good test, haven't fully thought about it.)
Note that Sony mentions the superiority of its technique over competitors who use partial charge transfers to extend the dynamic range of their sensors.
Partial charge transfers are well known for introducing non linearities, see this article for example
www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/9/12/9452/pdf
That's why I restate my "no simple categorical answer exists". :-)
-
Hi,
I may try your suggestions, when I have time.
I have done some tests with the Stouffer wedge and found that the response was linear. BUT, the default settings in LR will not give a linear image, and the image will be hard to interpret. I used Imatest for my evaluation and it is presented here:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/56-an-lr-view-of-the-stouffer-wedge?start=2
Anyway, this is a discussion on 36-MP DSLRs and not sensor linearity, so I would strongly suggest that you start a new topic named "Are sensors linear?" or so.
Best regards
Erik
I remind you that It was never my intention to change the subject Erik, I was about the importance of highlight DR and the negative impact that resolution increase would have to it and it was Bernard that quoted that HDR doesn't exist because dada is linear, which you supported. Anyway, since finally (I suppose) that we all agree that HLDR does exist and it benefits from larger pixels as is LLDR and the whole DR for that matter, wouldn't you agree that its the best for our photography to deal with these matters (DR and NR) first and let resolution advance in the future, when inevitably pixels may be smaller but will be able to retain what has to be gained in performance? Or shall we retain performance to the low (IMO) standards that it has now and advance resolution, which will only increase the already huge possible prints that can be done? Happy new year to everybody, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
It is indeed hard to know what is done, by the manufatcturer, on the sensor. On the other hand, if one beliefs the results of Dx0, and look at the Nikon D3s, D3x and d7000 (in screen mode, the results per pixels), the dynamic range increases as the pixel size decreases.
The method with multiple exposures per pixel, if the light intensity is high, seems less likely on the type of sensor used in a DSLR. All of them , as far as I know, need a shutter, at least to terminate the exposure.
-
as far as I know, need a shutter, at least to terminate the exposure.
Not really - how would they expose in video mode/ do live view if they needed a physical shutter, rotating wheel, whatever... In the Exmor line used in surveillance cameras, it is very clear from the data sheets and litterature that they are essentially widening DR by doingmultiple exposures at the pixel level. You "simply" need a not too noisy, characterizable method to read and drain the charge in a particular pixel if it fills fast enough. "simply" is a a way of speaking of course as it involves a lot a work at a very small scale...
-
It is indeed hard to know what is done, by the manufatcturer, on the sensor. On the other hand, if one beliefs the results of Dx0, and look at the Nikon D3s, D3x and d7000 (in screen mode, the results per pixels), the dynamic range increases as the pixel size decreases.
The method with multiple exposures per pixel, if the light intensity is high, seems less likely on the type of sensor used in a DSLR. All of them , as far as I know, need a shutter, at least to terminate the exposure.
Hi, DR as measured by DXO, is different to HLDR, its a matter of noise acceptance of the test in LLDR that decides the total DR, without being wrong in their measurment, DXO finds MFDBs to be worst than most DSLRs which is not the case for any photographer that has used a MFDB (far from it), in photography HLDR is far more important (to most photographers) than LLDR, in MFDBs the noise level at deep shadows is far less than DSLRs and to some tests this appears as less LLDR extension, which of course affects the total result of the test. I personally find my MFDB (Imacon 528c) to be almost as good as Fuji S5Pro in HLDR and both of them to be more than a stop better than either D3X or D700. OTH, I find them, both Fuji and my MFDB to be about a stop worst than film on HLDR. Happy new year to everybody, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr