If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
New sensor with unlimited dynamic range
http://web.media.mit.edu/~hangzhao/modulo.html
When a pixel fills up, it is automatically emptied. The camera counts the number of times a pixel is emptied. Pixels in the darker image areas probably never completely fill up. -- Alfred Molon Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
New sensor with unlimited dynamic range
In article , Alfred Molon wrote:
http://web.media.mit.edu/~hangzhao/modulo.html When a pixel fills up, it is automatically emptied. The camera counts the number of times a pixel is emptied. Pixels in the darker image areas probably never completely fill up. Pretty smart, but the example images didn't really sell the concept enough. With "unlimited" dynamic range, you'd think nothing in the image could possibly be overexposed, but some of the example images, while a lot better than the normal photos, still looked like they were blown in areas. Since this "unlimited" dynamic range only works for highlights, you also need to expose for the darkest part of the scene. Or, if this technology would find itself into normal Nikons and Canons, they would automatically expose for the darkest part of the scene, while everything else would be blown and then in-camera recovered. Not sure what the coloring is used for in the example images? I am assuming we're looking at raw images with a really high bit rate, and for some reason they are showing those higher values with funky colors for some reason. Makes me wonder what kind of post-processing is needed for each photo. The logical thing to do is to use a high bit depth for the image, like 16 or 32 bit, but keep "normal" exposure data in the first 14 bits for example. So instead of 0-2744 in 14bit be the same range as 0-4096 in 16 bit, the first 0-2744 in 16 bit corresponds to 1 bit data, while the rest is used for the otherwise overexposed data, which of course requires some fancy post-processing to even the range out to a normal image. Or you use a 16 bit readout from the sensor (as per above), then in-camera re- arrange that to a 14 bit range, producing a balanced image. -- Sandman |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
New sensor with unlimited dynamic range
In article , RichA wrote:
Alfred Molon: http://web.media.mit.edu/~hangzhao/modulo.html When a pixel fills up, it is automatically emptied. The camera counts the number of times a pixel is emptied. Pixels in the darker image areas probably never completely fill up. Sandman: Pretty smart, but the example images didn't really sell the concept enough. With "unlimited" dynamic range, you'd think nothing in the image could possibly be overexposed, but some of the example images, while a lot better than the normal photos, still looked like they were blown in areas. Since this "unlimited" dynamic range only works for highlights, you also need to expose for the darkest part of the scene. Or, if this technology would find itself into normal Nikons and Canons, they would automatically expose for the darkest part of the scene, while everything else would be blown and then in-camera recovered. Not sure what the coloring is used for in the example images? I am assuming we're looking at raw images with a really high bit rate, and for some reason they are showing those higher values with funky colors for some reason. Makes me wonder what kind of post-processing is needed for each photo. The logical thing to do is to use a high bit depth for the image, like 16 or 32 bit, but keep "normal" exposure data in the first 14 bits for example. So instead of 0-2744 in 14bit be the same range as 0-4096 in 16 bit, the first 0-2744 in 16 bit corresponds to 1 bit data, while the rest is used for the otherwise overexposed data, which of course requires some fancy post-processing to even the range out to a normal image. Or you use a 16 bit readout from the sensor (as per above), then in-camera re- arrange that to a 14 bit range, producing a balanced image. -- Sandman This is all fine, so when they will apply similar progress to display technology? That's... not the same thing at all. -- Sandman |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
New sensor with unlimited dynamic range
In article , RichA wrote:
Alfred Molon: http://web.media.mit.edu/~hangzhao/modulo.html When a pixel fills up, it is automatically emptied. The camera counts the number of times a pixel is emptied. Pixels in the darker image areas probably never completely fill up. Sandman: Pretty smart, but the example images didn't really sell the concept enough. With "unlimited" dynamic range, you'd think nothing in the image could possibly be overexposed, but some of the example images, while a lot better than the normal photos, still looked like they were blown in areas. Since this "unlimited" dynamic range only works for highlights, you also need to expose for the darkest part of the scene. Or, if this technology would find itself into normal Nikons and Canons, they would automatically expose for the darkest part of the scene, while everything else would be blown and then in-camera recovered. Not sure what the coloring is used for in the example images? I am assuming we're looking at raw images with a really high bit rate, and for some reason they are showing those higher values with funky colors for some reason. Makes me wonder what kind of post-processing is needed for each photo. The logical thing to do is to use a high bit depth for the image, like 16 or 32 bit, but keep "normal" exposure data in the first 14 bits for example. So instead of 0-2744 in 14bit be the same range as 0-4096 in 16 bit, the first 0-2744 in 16 bit corresponds to 1 bit data, while the rest is used for the otherwise overexposed data, which of course requires some fancy post-processing to even the range out to a normal image. Or you use a 16 bit readout from the sensor (as per above), then in-camera re- arrange that to a 14 bit range, producing a balanced image. -- Sandman RichA: This is all fine, so when they will apply similar progress to display technology? Sandman: That's... not the same thing at all. -- Sandman So what good is it if the camera does it but you can't SEE the result? Yes you can. You just didn't understand it. Viewing HDR images doesn't require a HDR monitor, it's all about compressing the larger dynamic range into a smaller dynamic range. Since the human eye barely can tell the difference between an 8bit monitor and a 10 bit monitor, there is no need for a 14 bit or 16 bit monitor. The key is taking high bit data and showing it in the normal spectrum. -- Sandman |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D! | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 3 | September 19th 08 01:19 PM |
Dynamic Range of RAW digital sensor data | Alan Browne | Digital SLR Cameras | 10 | February 4th 07 08:03 AM |
Dynamic Range of RAW digital sensor data | Timo Autiokari | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | February 4th 07 07:44 AM |
dynamic range | Paul Furman | Digital SLR Cameras | 36 | February 22nd 06 05:05 AM |
Are we ignored regarding dynamic range? | ThomasH | Digital Photography | 43 | January 2nd 05 12:32 AM |