Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,921   Posts: 1,584,939   Online: 1047
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hollis, NH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    732
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by DrPablo View Post
    Bit depth has nothing to do with dynamic range. It only has to do with the number of intermediate tones between extremes.

    If a sensor can record detail over a 1000:1 brightness range (approx 10 stops), then increasing from 24 to 32 to 48 to 96 bits is not going to change the upper and lower limits of that range -- it will only change the number of intermediates.

    To get a higher dynamic range, you need a physical sensor that is responsive over a greater range of light. Once you've accomplished that, then you'll need higher bit depth to accomodate all the data -- but it's the sensor and not the bit encoding that makes this possible.

    The 32-bit files in HDR are necessary because each individual pixel holds the R/G/B information from 5, 8, 10, etc individual captures. So you need extra bit depth just to hold all that data. But it's not the bit depth per se that creates the higher dynamic range -- it's the content of that pixel information that does.
    I am well aware of this - However, I think it is pretty obvious that digital sensor manufacturers wouldn't create a 32-bit chip unless the sensors had the dynamic range to take advantage of it.

  2. #22
    DrPablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    796
    Images
    63
    True. Though I think the dynamic range of current digital cameras is pretty much fine. All they need to do is make the shadows far less noisy and make the highlights end much less abruptly. DSLRs already have a much greater latitude than slide film, and they're comparable to a negative with standard development.
    Paul

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hollis, NH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    732
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by DrPablo View Post
    True. Though I think the dynamic range of current digital cameras is pretty much fine. All they need to do is make the shadows far less noisy and make the highlights end much less abruptly. DSLRs already have a much greater latitude than slide film, and they're comparable to a negative with standard development.
    Hmm - that's not what I understood. everything I've read indicates digital sensors have about the same dynamic range as slide film. In any case B&W film processed properly has a much wider dynamic range than digital sensors or color film. I'd like to see a digital sensor with at least as much range as B&W and preferably more. There are always difficult lighting situations that need more range to capture.

  4. #24
    DrPablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    796
    Images
    63
    Some guy on FredMiranda did a huge study in which people put their cameras on manual, and shot a series of pictures of a wall, adjusting exposure by 1/3 of a stop, and the dynamic range was determined to be the number of stops between the lowest and highest exposure setting where there was recognizable detail.

    The average was something like 7 2/3 stops, and some people (mainly with full frame cameras) reported over 9 stops. I'm sure some of this DR is not necessarily useful DR, like the bottom 1 stop and the top ~ 1/2 stop. But still, that's a pretty good DR. Part of the problem is that there is no shoulder, though, so highlights end up being all weighted equally until they cut out. So the DR is qualitatively different than on film.

    I haven't studied this formally, but I'd give Velvia maybe 4 useful stops in my experience, and Astia maybe 6 or 7. I definitely have to be more careful these days shooting slide film than I ever did when I predominantly shot digital. Then again I could shoot 800 pictures to make sure I hit the exposure on one of them, and I'm not doing that with 8x10 slide film.
    Paul

  5. #25
    bjorke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SF & Surrounding Planet
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,032
    Images
    20
    I think "Photo Techniques" did a similar study (was it "Digital Photo Pro"?) that showed varying dyanamic range between a # of cameras. The best cameras did very well. What was interesting to me was that the camers with the widest DR were not known as the best cameras -- because, apparently, they also had a lot of variance (noise) in the extremes of their ranges. Cameras with low variance AND wide DR were, as you might expect, top-dollar items.

    (At this point the little clown on a tricycle comes through reminding us all that film frames do not display these artifacts, and behave with great consistency across all acceptable ranges -- that is, they are still a match for the best commercial/consumer digi sensors)

    "What Would Zeus Do?"
    KBPhotoRantPhotoPermitAPUG flickr Robot

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin