A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Are we ignored regarding dynamic range?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 4th 04, 09:33 PM
ThomasH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old December 4th 04, 10:22 PM
Roland Karlsson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 4th 04, 10:22 PM
Roland Karlsson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 4th 04, 10:22 PM
Roland Karlsson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 4th 04, 11:42 PM
Aerticulean Effort
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 4th 04, 11:43 PM
Robertwgross
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 4th 04, 11:43 PM
Robertwgross
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 5th 04, 12:29 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 5th 04, 12:33 AM
Joseph Meehan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 5th 04, 05:06 AM
None
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 07:09 AM
Dynamic range of digital and film: more data Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) Digital Photography 0 November 12th 04 01:45 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.