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
|
|||
|
|||
Are we ignored regarding dynamic range?
We all became used to the Web sited with tests of equipment. They are often much better and more thorough than what we can read in the printed press. What we see on these pages influences our purchasing decisions and as it is in business: meanwhile Manufacturers "sponsor" these sits often to bias the tests just a bit... While looking at the web sites with tests of digital cameras for several years already I never stopped to wonder: Why they still fail to include all essential characteristics of the sensor and of the image processor. For me not just the megapixels count. I would like to know what is the bit depth per pixel. Or I would like to see a warning: "manufacturer does not disclose bit depth of a pixel." Just look at the dpreview review of Canon G6, what is considered a prosumer camera. Page 2 (Specifications) lists RAW mode, but does not specify the bit depth. It makes me angry. Same Steve Digicams (he mentions however that the digic processor processes 12bit signal) and you can go on so along all review sites of rank. Same with (say) Nikon 8800. It has NEF and RAW modes, it says. And? How many bits per pixel does it deliver??? This feature is so fundamental, so decisive. And yet is being mentioned only in DSLR or middle format digital back reviews. Why? More bits per pixel provide the so important richness of detail in highlight and in shadow, allows to manipulate image to a far larger extend. Of course, whoever ignores RAW or tiff mode and shoots *.jpeg, has always already lost and obtains 8bit per color in pixel, regardless the used gear! But the raw data and the tiffs support bigger depth per pixel and can deliver much richer image detail. Just a reminder to all who do not deal with data processing: Obvious calculation shows that 12bit can hold 4096 levels of luminance, 8bit merely 256, it's 16 times more!! Even mere 10bit per pixel allows already for 4 times more levels of luminance. I would suggest to *always* calculate as an additional technical spec "image data" in megapixels. As an example lets compare two cameras. I took in both cases Pentax to escape the usual Canon/Nikon bashing. I used factor of 1024 to calculate Kbyes and Mbytes. camera A has camera B has 6Mpix 7Mpix sensor 3008 x 2008 3056 x 2296 depth 12bits per color. 8bit per color raw data 69.12Mbytes 53.53MBytes converted tiff 207.37MBytes 160.6Mbytes And there is the extra megapixel gone... Why everybody puts cameras in "megapixel categories," but never not in "image data" categories? Of course higher resolution has its merits, but I would always weight it against more dynamic range! If the smaller resolution is big enough to match the quality of my glass and to achieve the largest size of prints which I can do, I will rather always go for a camera which has better dynamic range and less pixels! I just would like to know... what is it!!! If not provided, I assume its mere 8bit per color. Thomas |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
ThomasH wrote in :
whoever ignores RAW or tiff mode and shoots *.jpeg, has always already lost and obtains 8bit per color in pixel, regardless the used gear! The JPEG picture uses 8 bit gamma 2.2. That is just as much dynamic range as 12 bit linear. /Roland |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
ThomasH wrote in :
whoever ignores RAW or tiff mode and shoots *.jpeg, has always already lost and obtains 8bit per color in pixel, regardless the used gear! The JPEG picture uses 8 bit gamma 2.2. That is just as much dynamic range as 12 bit linear. /Roland |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
ThomasH wrote in :
whoever ignores RAW or tiff mode and shoots *.jpeg, has always already lost and obtains 8bit per color in pixel, regardless the used gear! The JPEG picture uses 8 bit gamma 2.2. That is just as much dynamic range as 12 bit linear. /Roland |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
ThomasH wrote:
We all became used to the Web sited with tests of equipment. They are often much better and more thorough than what we can read in the printed press. What we see on these pages influences our purchasing decisions and as it is in business: meanwhile Manufacturers "sponsor" these sits often to bias the tests just a bit... While looking at the web sites with tests of digital cameras for several years already I never stopped to wonder: Why they still fail to include all essential characteristics of the sensor and of the image processor. For me not just the megapixels count. I would like to know what is the bit depth per pixel. Or I would like to see a warning: "manufacturer does not disclose bit depth of a pixel." Just look at the dpreview review of Canon G6, what is considered a prosumer camera. Page 2 (Specifications) lists RAW mode, but does not specify the bit depth. It makes me angry. Same Steve Digicams (he mentions however that the digic processor processes 12bit signal) and you can go on so along all review sites of rank. Same with (say) Nikon 8800. It has NEF and RAW modes, it says. And? How many bits per pixel does it deliver??? This feature is so fundamental, so decisive. And yet is being mentioned only in DSLR or middle format digital back reviews. Why? More bits per pixel provide the so important richness of detail in highlight and in shadow, allows to manipulate image to a far larger extend. Of course, whoever ignores RAW or tiff mode and shoots *.jpeg, has always already lost and obtains 8bit per color in pixel, regardless the used gear! But the raw data and the tiffs support bigger depth per pixel and can deliver much richer image detail. Just a reminder to all who do not deal with data processing: Obvious calculation shows that 12bit can hold 4096 levels of luminance, 8bit merely 256, it's 16 times more!! Even mere 10bit per pixel allows already for 4 times more levels of luminance. I would suggest to *always* calculate as an additional technical spec "image data" in megapixels. As an example lets compare two cameras. I took in both cases Pentax to escape the usual Canon/Nikon bashing. I used factor of 1024 to calculate Kbyes and Mbytes. camera A has camera B has 6Mpix 7Mpix sensor 3008 x 2008 3056 x 2296 depth 12bits per color. 8bit per color raw data 69.12Mbytes 53.53MBytes converted tiff 207.37MBytes 160.6Mbytes And there is the extra megapixel gone... Why everybody puts cameras in "megapixel categories," but never not in "image data" categories? Of course higher resolution has its merits, but I would always weight it against more dynamic range! If the smaller resolution is big enough to match the quality of my glass and to achieve the largest size of prints which I can do, I will rather always go for a camera which has better dynamic range and less pixels! I just would like to know... what is it!!! If not provided, I assume its mere 8bit per color. Thomas Good post Thomas This info is gratefully received Aerticeus ps - have you given much thought the the optical zoom conversion? 58mm on my digicam looks purty darn close to 200mm on a 35mm yet its called 380mm (35mm equiv) Let me know what you think on this one A |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
ThomasH wrote:
...How many bits per pixel does it deliver??? Canon RAW is 12 bits per pixel. Don't get angry. If you see some specifications that you don't like, buy some other brand that you do like. ---Bob Gross--- |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
ThomasH wrote:
...How many bits per pixel does it deliver??? Canon RAW is 12 bits per pixel. Don't get angry. If you see some specifications that you don't like, buy some other brand that you do like. ---Bob Gross--- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In message ,
Roland Karlsson wrote: The JPEG picture uses 8 bit gamma 2.2. That is just as much dynamic range as 12 bit linear. Actually, an 8-bit gamma2.2--adjusted scale has more dynamic range than 12-bit linear. Of course, the 8-bit gamma data comes from the 12-bit linear, so nothing is gained, only lost, in the 12-bit linear to 8-bit gamma. -- John P Sheehy |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
ThomasH wrote:
We all became used to the Web sited with tests of equipment. They are often much better and more thorough than what we can read in the printed press. What we see on these pages influences our purchasing decisions and as it is in business: meanwhile Manufacturers "sponsor" these sits often to bias the tests just a bit... While looking at the web sites with tests of digital cameras for several years already I never stopped to wonder: Why they still fail to include all essential characteristics of the sensor and of the image processor. For me not just the megapixels count. I would like to know what is the bit depth per pixel. Or I would like to see a warning: "manufacturer does not disclose bit depth of a pixel." Just look at the dpreview review of Canon G6, what is considered a prosumer camera. Page 2 (Specifications) lists RAW mode, but does not specify the bit depth. It makes me angry. Same Steve Digicams (he mentions however that the digic processor processes 12bit signal) and you can go on so along all review sites of rank. Same with (say) Nikon 8800. It has NEF and RAW modes, it says. And? How many bits per pixel does it deliver??? This feature is so fundamental, so decisive. And yet is being mentioned only in DSLR or middle format digital back reviews. Why? More bits per pixel provide the so important richness of detail in highlight and in shadow, allows to manipulate image to a far larger extend. Of course, whoever ignores RAW or tiff mode and shoots *.jpeg, has always already lost and obtains 8bit per color in pixel, regardless the used gear! But the raw data and the tiffs support bigger depth per pixel and can deliver much richer image detail. Just a reminder to all who do not deal with data processing: Obvious calculation shows that 12bit can hold 4096 levels of luminance, 8bit merely 256, it's 16 times more!! Even mere 10bit per pixel allows already for 4 times more levels of luminance. I would suggest to *always* calculate as an additional technical spec "image data" in megapixels. As an example lets compare two cameras. I took in both cases Pentax to escape the usual Canon/Nikon bashing. I used factor of 1024 to calculate Kbyes and Mbytes. camera A has camera B has 6Mpix 7Mpix sensor 3008 x 2008 3056 x 2296 depth 12bits per color. 8bit per color raw data 69.12Mbytes 53.53MBytes converted tiff 207.37MBytes 160.6Mbytes And there is the extra megapixel gone... Why everybody puts cameras in "megapixel categories," but never not in "image data" categories? Of course higher resolution has its merits, but I would always weight it against more dynamic range! If the smaller resolution is big enough to match the quality of my glass and to achieve the largest size of prints which I can do, I will rather always go for a camera which has better dynamic range and less pixels! I just would like to know... what is it!!! If not provided, I assume its mere 8bit per color. Thomas Personally I find looking at actual results is a much better comparison than stats. -- Joseph Meehan 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I would like to know what is the bit depth per pixel. Or I would
Of course higher resolution has its merits, but I would always weight it against more dynamic range! Which is it you want? Dynamic range or color depth? Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seems that you are running the two together. As I have come to understand it, color depth is one thing; but it is not dynamic range as applied to photography and sensors. From what I have gleaned, dynamic range is a measure of how many gradations (stops) of luminance can be recorded sensor-wide, rather than how many gradations of color value can be recorded at one photo site. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dynamic range of digital and film: new data | Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) | Digital Photography | 51 | November 14th 04 06:09 AM |
Dynamic range of digital and film: more data | Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) | Digital Photography | 0 | November 12th 04 12:45 AM |
Dynamic range of an image | Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) | Digital Photography | 143 | August 27th 04 07:35 PM |
below $1000 film vs digital | Mike Henley | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 182 | June 25th 04 03:37 AM |