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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 23:04:58 -0000 (UTC), Peter Irwin
wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: You really should have linear encoding, but there is no reason why the encoded range should be anything in particular. If you have linear encoding you need twice as many numbers every time you add a stop (which doubles the range in linear terms). Doubling the numbers available in binary means using one more bit. Therefore in linear terms 1 bit = 1 stop. Peter. That is certainly the case once the image is out in the open world. But within the camera, in the process of transforming the sensor's output into 12 or 14 (or any other) number of bits the camera maker is free to select the dynamic range of their choice. They can then slice that up to any preferred number of slices for coding. That is the point I have been trying to make. Nikon are free to do what they like with the image before they code it. They camera could easily have a dynamic range of 14.3 (or whatever you like) in the sense that it is able to discriminate across that range of light. This is quite a separate question from how this dynamic range can be encoded for recording on a SV card (or whatever). -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 16:09:23 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote: On 2019-01-03 17:55, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 02 Jan 2019 19:19:36 -0500, nospam wrote: In article , Peter Irwin wrote: nope. it's *not* *possible* to resolve 37 stops with a 14 bit adc. How about an IRL wager to resolve this disagreement? I can offer Welch-proof terms. Nospam's statement as written is trivially true: x stops of resolution requires x bits. That is a fact of mathematics, yep but not a useful statement of what is needed for making images to be seen by humans. the issue was that dxo claimed that several cameras which have a 14 bit adc could produce nearly 15 stops of dynamic range. that's not possible. as i said before, an 14 bit adc limits the dynamic range to a theoretical maximum of 14 stops. You keep saying that but you never say why. Does he have to say "math"? IAC, 14 bits can't even give you a true 14 stops because of noise. More like 12.5, maybe 13 on a cold, cold, cold day (if the camera works). See my response to Peter Irwin. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
On Fri, 04 Jan 2019 16:35:57 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , Alan Browne wrote: as i said before, an 14 bit adc limits the dynamic range to a theoretical maximum of 14 stops. You keep saying that but you never say why. Does he have to say "math"? already did. IAC, 14 bits can't even give you a true 14 stops because of noise. More like 12.5, maybe 13 on a cold, cold, cold day (if the camera works). yep, which is why i said theoretical maximum. See my response to Peter Irwin. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 16:16:05 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote: On 2019-01-02 04:16, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 07:48:13 +0000, RJH wrote: On 02/01/2019 01:38, nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: You are obviously wedded to 1 stop per bit. Why is that? math. Why for example can you not have 2 stops per bit, or pi stops per bit? As long as you scale the entire brightness range with the available 14 stops. because it doesn't work that way. think about what a stop means. FWIW, I don't follow the linearity - in fact I've often wondered why aperture, ISO and shutter speed aren't infinitely variable, especially with digital. This article takes me closer to understanding: https://expertphotography.com/understanding-fstops-stops-in-photography-exposure/ The author of that article is using 'stop' when he should be using 'exposure value'. But lets not get into that in this thread. It's confused enough already. :-) There is no difference at all between an EV and a stop of any of the three independent variables of ISO, exposure period and aperture. It may be hair-splitting but none of my lenses are calibrated in EVs. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
On Fri, 04 Jan 2019 11:36:36 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Tell me where. Surely you can manage that? start with a class on signal theory, or perhaps a textbook, which i already mentioned. A global search of the last six months of postings in this news group have failed to find any evidence that anyone has ever mentioned a textbook before you did in the message to which I am replying. a search of *this* thread, finds the following from *two* *days* *ago*: In article , nospam wrote: If there is, you seem utterly unable to explain it. i did, as do numerous engineering text books. it's clear you aren't interested in learning anything. That was "the message to which I am (was) replying". you failed again. hopefully you will pay more attention there than you do here... Hopefully I will find a real mention. hopefully you will stop babbling, but the chances of that are very close to zero. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: You really should have linear encoding, but there is no reason why the encoded range should be anything in particular. If you have linear encoding you need twice as many numbers every time you add a stop (which doubles the range in linear terms). Doubling the numbers available in binary means using one more bit. Therefore in linear terms 1 bit = 1 stop. That is certainly the case once the image is out in the open world. no. But within the camera, in the process of transforming the sensor's output into 12 or 14 (or any other) number of bits the camera maker is free to select the dynamic range of their choice. They can then slice that up to any preferred number of slices for coding. no. That is the point I have been trying to make. Nikon are free to do what they like with the image before they code it. They camera could easily have a dynamic range of 14.3 (or whatever you like) in the sense that it is able to discriminate across that range of light. This is quite a separate question from how this dynamic range can be encoded for recording on a SV card (or whatever). no. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: The author of that article is using 'stop' when he should be using 'exposure value'. But lets not get into that in this thread. It's confused enough already. :-) There is no difference at all between an EV and a stop of any of the three independent variables of ISO, exposure period and aperture. It may be hair-splitting but none of my lenses are calibrated in EVs. it definitely is hair-splitting. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: Tell me where. Surely you can manage that? start with a class on signal theory, or perhaps a textbook, which i already mentioned. A global search of the last six months of postings in this news group have failed to find any evidence that anyone has ever mentioned a textbook before you did in the message to which I am replying. a search of *this* thread, finds the following from *two* *days* *ago*: In article , nospam wrote: If there is, you seem utterly unable to explain it. i did, as do numerous engineering text books. it's clear you aren't interested in learning anything. That was "the message to which I am (was) replying". no. the message to which you were replying was the one above, where i wrote: start with a class on signal theory, or perhaps a textbook, which i already mentioned. which indirectly references the earlier post (from two days ago, soon to be three) where textbooks were first mentioned: i did, as do numerous engineering text books. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
rOn Thu, 3 Jan 2019 11:26:55 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote: On 2019-01-03 10:58, Peter Irwin wrote: nospam wrote: In article , Peter Irwin wrote: the issue was that dxo claimed that several cameras which have a 14 bit adc could produce nearly 15 stops of dynamic range. that's not possible. You have to give up linear encoding, but sure it is possible. It might be perfectly sensible to have a toe and shoulder to the curve which would allow 15 stops of dynamic range encoded in 14 bits. I do not know if that is what is happening, but it would be a reasonable thing to do. A major departure from linear encoding anywhere other than the toe and shoulder would not be a good idea. It used to be common to assume about 1.5 bits worth of noise to any ADC sample so you'd have to account for that (even if less than 1.5 bits worth, noise is ... noise). Yours is the first answer which appears to throw light on the difference of opinion. Dynamic range is the difference between the least amount of light the camera can make use of up to the maximum required to saturate the sensor. As you imply, there is a great deal of noise at the bottom end which tends to make that end of the dynamic range of debatable value. Similarly there is noise generated at the top end as more and more wells become saturated. Getting back to the original discussion, we don't know how DxO defines dynamic range for a sensor. Is it the range from no light to all wells fully saturated by photons? Or is it the range from the least usable light to the maximum acceptably saturated image? Or is it something in between where there is some noise at each end of the range? I have no idea. Irrespective of what DxO do, it is to be expected that as time progresses improvements in sensor design will reduce noise at each end of the scale, thereby expanding the useful fraction of the sensors dynamic range. It may also be that technical advances will cause the sensor's fundamental dynamic range to be increased. In any case the dynamic range of the sensor, whether fundamental or merely useful, has nothing to do with the properties of the digital electronics down stream of the sensor. Their function is to take the output of the sensor and scale it from the bottom to the top of the range. As nospam has pointed out the dynamic range encoded by the digital output of the camera's ADC is limited by number of bits in the output stream. However with a 14 bit encoding, the lowest amount of light will be encoded as 00000000000001 and the maximum as 11111111111111 giving are 16,384 possible gradations in the recorded value of illumination. If these are interpreted as EVs the dynamic range of the raw file will be limited to 14 stops. But this does not mean that the sensor has a dynamic range of 14 stops. It only means that the sensors dynamic range has been mapped to an EV range 14:1. It says nothing about the dynamic range of the sensor. In any case it is quite possible for the dynamic range of the sensor to exceed the dynamic range of the system of encoding. "Compressing" (Stretching, really) any portion of the curve (toe and shoulder included) means increased quantization noise, so not so sure the alleged 15 stops would really translate well to image quality. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest(waiting for specific offering)
On 2019-01-05 05:03, Eric Stevens wrote:
rOn Thu, 3 Jan 2019 11:26:55 -0500, Alan Browne wrote: On 2019-01-03 10:58, Peter Irwin wrote: nospam wrote: In article , Peter Irwin wrote: the issue was that dxo claimed that several cameras which have a 14 bit adc could produce nearly 15 stops of dynamic range. that's not possible. You have to give up linear encoding, but sure it is possible. It might be perfectly sensible to have a toe and shoulder to the curve which would allow 15 stops of dynamic range encoded in 14 bits. I do not know if that is what is happening, but it would be a reasonable thing to do. A major departure from linear encoding anywhere other than the toe and shoulder would not be a good idea. It used to be common to assume about 1.5 bits worth of noise to any ADC sample so you'd have to account for that (even if less than 1.5 bits worth, noise is ... noise). Yours is the first answer which appears to throw light on the difference of opinion. No. Nospam said it clearly enough: there is no magic. s all the painfully obvious stuff In any case it is quite possible for the dynamic range of the sensor to exceed the dynamic range of the system of encoding. In which case the sensor maker would have been foolish to not put in a 16 bit ADC for the case at hand. It is far more likely that the sensor does not have the DR and that the 14 bit ADC exceeds the DR of the sensor. That is usually the way engineers do these sorts of things[1]. "Compressing" (Stretching, really) any portion of the curve (toe and shoulder included) means increased quantization noise, so not so sure the alleged 15 stops would really translate well to image quality. [1] Back in the days when ADC's were expensive devices, one would "right size" the ADC number of bits for acceptable performance v. a cost goal. That's not much of a consideration today at the 16 bit level if the sensor had that sort of performance - just not at all likely. -- "2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do." - unknown protester |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering) | Alfred Molon[_4_] | Digital Photography | 2 | December 24th 18 02:37 PM |
Please, tell me Zeiss's offering to the camera world won't be areskinned SONY!! | Neil[_9_] | Digital Photography | 1 | August 27th 18 01:00 PM |
Need a camera with specific features: | Gary Smiley | Digital Photography | 1 | May 22nd 06 02:31 AM |
Canon Offering $600+ Rebate on Digital Camera Equipment (3x Rebate Offers) | Mark | Digital Photography | 6 | November 4th 04 10:27 AM |