Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest(waiting for specific offering)

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/

--
Cheers, Rob

On Tue, 01 Jan 2019 20:38:13 -0500, 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.

Think about what a bit means. There is no reason why 1 bit = 1 stop,
or vice versa.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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. :-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , RJH wrote:


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.

they are.

f/stop always has been infinitely variable and shutter speed has been
since electronic shutters.

it also doesn't matter that much.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


https://expertphotography.com/unders...hotography-exp
osure/

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. :-)

equivalent.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


think about what a stop means.

Think about what a bit means. There is no reason why 1 bit = 1 stop,
or vice versa.

there is.

-hh wrote:
nospam 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, but not a useful statement of what
is needed for making images to be seen by humans.

A print intended for normal viewing never needs more than 7 bits of
luminance information. An image on backlit transparency might need
nine at the outside. This is from a combination of the nature of
the media and the nature of human vision.

37 stops is a ridiculously large range in any case. The difference
between the brightest object our eyes can cope with - snow in full
sunlight- and the dimmest - a sixth magnitude star - is only about
28 stops.

Peter.

On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 20:18:21 -0000 (UTC), Peter Irwin
wrote:

-hh wrote:
nospam 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.

Apart from the fact that the initial discussion was about dynamic
range rather than resolution, nospam seems unable to explain this. Are
you able to do better?

That is a fact of mathematics, but not a useful statement of what
is needed for making images to be seen by humans.

A print intended for normal viewing never needs more than 7 bits of
luminance information. An image on backlit transparency might need
nine at the outside. This is from a combination of the nature of
the media and the nature of human vision.

Yep.

37 stops is a ridiculously large range in any case. The difference
between the brightest object our eyes can cope with - snow in full
sunlight- and the dimmest - a sixth magnitude star - is only about
28 stops.

I used 37 stops merely to take the argument into the general case
rather than the specific case of the Nikon D850 under discussion.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 02 Jan 2019 08:25:37 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


think about what a stop means.

Think about what a bit means. There is no reason why 1 bit = 1 stop,
or vice versa.

there is.

If there is, you seem utterly unable to explain it.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
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.

Apart from the fact that the initial discussion was about dynamic
range rather than resolution, nospam seems unable to explain this. Are
you able to do better?

i explained it several times.

don't blame others because you don't understand it.