10-21-2010, 01:34 PM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1287652927' post='3714']
I agree with Wim in that the call for higher DR is usually not based on anything. High dynamic range results in bland images without contrast, which are NOT the images that would do much for us... just lower the contrast to the minimum in your RAW converter and you will get the idea.
Usually the call for higher DR is just repeating what has been seen on internet forums...
The only advantage of film over digital really is the way sensors collect and store the data... In the lower regions the doubling of the light does not have very many steps in between, making the dark data really rather coarse. But that can not be solved with higher DR.
What usually gets measured as DR (with the likes of DXOmark for instance) is more the noise... but a lower noise in shadows does not convey any different images to our eyes. There is a bad way of improving DR there (noise reduction, which does have its impact usually on IQ, like Nikon and Sony apply), and a good way (improving the AD conversion).
Improving the AD conversion does not have much to do with the photon collection itself, though.
[/quote]
That's right, photon collection stays the same. We just need to improve AD conversion here <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />. More levels or tones if you like, with a lower SNR.
The dark areas sparse data is not really a problem, because we humans don't really see any detail in dark stuff anyway, if there is a much brighter area in the same view. That is why the noise suppression of Nikon works so well. Just throw away the lower 2% to 3% with all the noise during AD readouts and conversion of sensor data to RAW (set it to absolutely black), and seemingly there is not only much less noise, but it also seemingly retains the same DR <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />. Works very well with the way the human eye sees, however.
Kind regards, Wim
I agree with Wim in that the call for higher DR is usually not based on anything. High dynamic range results in bland images without contrast, which are NOT the images that would do much for us... just lower the contrast to the minimum in your RAW converter and you will get the idea.
Usually the call for higher DR is just repeating what has been seen on internet forums...
The only advantage of film over digital really is the way sensors collect and store the data... In the lower regions the doubling of the light does not have very many steps in between, making the dark data really rather coarse. But that can not be solved with higher DR.
What usually gets measured as DR (with the likes of DXOmark for instance) is more the noise... but a lower noise in shadows does not convey any different images to our eyes. There is a bad way of improving DR there (noise reduction, which does have its impact usually on IQ, like Nikon and Sony apply), and a good way (improving the AD conversion).
Improving the AD conversion does not have much to do with the photon collection itself, though.
[/quote]
That's right, photon collection stays the same. We just need to improve AD conversion here <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />. More levels or tones if you like, with a lower SNR.
The dark areas sparse data is not really a problem, because we humans don't really see any detail in dark stuff anyway, if there is a much brighter area in the same view. That is why the noise suppression of Nikon works so well. Just throw away the lower 2% to 3% with all the noise during AD readouts and conversion of sensor data to RAW (set it to absolutely black), and seemingly there is not only much less noise, but it also seemingly retains the same DR <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />. Works very well with the way the human eye sees, however.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
