Catching All The Details In High Dynamic Range Pictures W/O Multiple Exposures

Here's a thought on processing those pixels of info that comprise a picture
(TAKEN with just one picture cycle) . Integrate each time period with an
exposure of x seconds. take next picture in camera, in intervals of
readings between time x1 and time x2. Continue on with differentials of
image gathering by watching the cells as they collect photons of light in
specified time periods. Make the sampling period vary according to the
dynamic range of the picture i.e. the more photons collected should kick in
a formula for desensitizing the sensor when a certain plateau of brighness
is reached. It's like compressing the low and high ends to better
represent actual camera dynamic range with what is actually being seen. I
don't know if monitors can represent the full range of colors and
intensities, but there should be some kind of tradeoff between squeezing
picture brightness/darkness towards a more palipable realistic look and
getting a picture that actually looks like what it did when you took it.


Pointers on photograpy tips appreciated.
Thanks.
--
__
SneakyP
To email me, you know what to do.

Supernews, if you get a complaint from a Jamie Baillie, please see:
http://www.canadianisp.ca/jamie_baillie.html

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 01:35:42 -0500, SneakyP
wrote:


Here's a thought on processing those pixels of info that comprise a picture
(TAKEN with just one picture cycle) . Integrate each time period with an
exposure of x seconds. take next picture in camera, in intervals of
readings between time x1 and time x2. Continue on with differentials of
image gathering by watching the cells as they collect photons of light in
specified time periods. Make the sampling period vary according to the
dynamic range of the picture i.e. the more photons collected should kick in
a formula for desensitizing the sensor when a certain plateau of brighness
is reached. It's like compressing the low and high ends to better
represent actual camera dynamic range with what is actually being seen. I
don't know if monitors can represent the full range of colors and
intensities, but there should be some kind of tradeoff between squeezing
picture brightness/darkness towards a more palipable realistic look and
getting a picture that actually looks like what it did when you took it.


Pointers on photograpy tips appreciated.
Thanks.

Here's a good tip ... take your medication. You don't have one clue how
imaging sensors work and are blathering on senselessly about something that
can't happen. But even more importantly, doesn't need to happen. You don't
even know about monitors. How much more of your life do you waste like
this? All of it? 95% of it? More? Less?

Here's another tip: If you want to see images in the real world in a
realistic representation (full dynamic range), get out of your mommy's
basement where you live in that imaginary world that you've invented
between your ears. Then you won't have to try to manipulate others to try
to bring it to you in high-resolution glimpses of what you've always been
too afraid to go see on your own out in the real world.

SneakyP wrote:

Here's a thought on processing those pixels of info that comprise a picture
(TAKEN with just one picture cycle) . Integrate each time period with an
exposure of x seconds. take next picture in camera, in intervals of
readings between time x1 and time x2. Continue on with differentials of
image gathering by watching the cells as they collect photons of light in
specified time periods. Make the sampling period vary according to the
dynamic range of the picture i.e. the more photons collected should kick in
a formula for desensitizing the sensor when a certain plateau of brighness
is reached. It's like compressing the low and high ends to better
represent actual camera dynamic range with what is actually being seen. I
don't know if monitors can represent the full range of colors and
intensities, but there should be some kind of tradeoff between squeezing
picture brightness/darkness towards a more palipable realistic look and
getting a picture that actually looks like what it did when you took it.

Nice idea, won't work. First, reading the cell empties it
irrevocably. Second, how do you handle moving objects? Third,
each reading causes read noise. Fourth, it's kinda hard to read
single cells ... for now you must live with a complete sensor read.

-Wolfgang

On 16/09/2010 12:40, ransley wrote:
On Sep 16, 1:35 am,
wrote:
Here's a thought on processing those pixels of info that comprise a picture
(TAKEN with just one picture cycle) . Integrate each time period with an
exposure of x seconds. take next picture in camera, in intervals of
readings between time x1 and time x2. Continue on with differentials of
image gathering by watching the cells as they collect photons of light in
specified time periods. Make the sampling period vary according to the
dynamic range of the picture i.e. the more photons collected should kick in
a formula for desensitizing the sensor when a certain plateau of brighness
is reached. It's like compressing the low and high ends to better
represent actual camera dynamic range with what is actually being seen. I
don't know if monitors can represent the full range of colors and
intensities, but there should be some kind of tradeoff between squeezing
picture brightness/darkness towards a more palipable realistic look and
getting a picture that actually looks like what it did when you took it.

Pointers on photograpy tips appreciated.
Thanks.
--
__
SneakyP
To email me, you know what to do.

Supernews, if you get a complaint from a Jamie Baillie, please see:http://www.canadianisp.ca/jamie_baillie.html

Yea, watch cells as they collect photons of light, you are smokin some
good stuff.

Actually that device is a real invention dating back to the late 1970's
and called the Image Photon Counting System. Cunning system design and
obvious limitations. Developed by Alan Boksenberg at Imperial College
London during the 1970's and derivatives are still in use today at ING
and a few other large observatories for specialised low signal imaging.
Obviously it is useless at high light levels you have to be able to
count each photon arrival and determine the centroid of the spot.

http://www.ing.iac.es/Astronomy/obse...00000000000000

Smoking good stuff is not required. It was absolutely ground breaking
when it first came out and was nick-named Instant Paper Creation System.
Compared to film it was streets ahead in sensitivity and noise floor and
it was pretty good for a while after CCDs became available to
astronomers too. It still beats CCDs on noise floor for some work.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On 9/16/2010 2:51 AM, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 01:35:42 -0500, SneakyP
wrote:


Here's a thought on processing those pixels of info that comprise a picture
(TAKEN with just one picture cycle) . Integrate each time period with an
exposure of x seconds. take next picture in camera, in intervals of
readings between time x1 and time x2. Continue on with differentials of
image gathering by watching the cells as they collect photons of light in
specified time periods. Make the sampling period vary according to the
dynamic range of the picture i.e. the more photons collected should kick in
a formula for desensitizing the sensor when a certain plateau of brighness
is reached. It's like compressing the low and high ends to better
represent actual camera dynamic range with what is actually being seen. I
don't know if monitors can represent the full range of colors and
intensities, but there should be some kind of tradeoff between squeezing
picture brightness/darkness towards a more palipable realistic look and
getting a picture that actually looks like what it did when you took it.


Pointers on photograpy tips appreciated.
Thanks.

Here's a good tip ... take your medication. You don't have one clue how
imaging sensors work and are blathering on senselessly about something that
can't happen. But even more importantly, doesn't need to happen. You don't
even know about monitors. How much more of your life do you waste like
this? All of it? 95% of it? More? Less?

Here's another tip: If you want to see images in the real world in a
realistic representation (full dynamic range), get out of your mommy's
basement where you live in that imaginary world that you've invented
between your ears. Then you won't have to try to manipulate others to try
to bring it to you in high-resolution glimpses of what you've always been
too afraid to go see on your own out in the real world.





Well either the op is very smart or I'm very dumb, because I haven't the
foggiest idea what he's talking about.

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:

Here's a thought on processing those pixels of info that comprise a picture
(TAKEN with just one picture cycle) . Integrate each time period with an
exposure of x seconds. take next picture in camera, in intervals of
readings between time x1 and time x2. Continue on with differentials of
image gathering by watching the cells as they collect photons of light in
specified time periods. Make the sampling period vary according to the
dynamic range of the picture i.e. the more photons collected should kick in
a formula for desensitizing the sensor when a certain plateau of brighness
is reached. It's like compressing the low and high ends to better
represent actual camera dynamic range with what is actually being seen. I
don't know if monitors can represent the full range of colors and
intensities, but there should be some kind of tradeoff between squeezing
picture brightness/darkness towards a more palipable realistic look and
getting a picture that actually looks like what it did when you took it.

Nice idea, won't work. First, reading the cell empties it
irrevocably. Second, how do you handle moving objects? Third,
each reading causes read noise. Fourth, it's kinda hard to read
single cells ... for now you must live with a complete sensor read.

What I got out of this is bracket & pick the brightest exposure that
doesn't blow out. To some extent, you can use the histogram but that'll
be some particular raw conversion to jpeg so not entirely reliable.

In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg writes

Nice idea, won't work. First, reading the cell empties it
irrevocably.

True with CCDs, not true with CMOS.

CMOS specifically needs to be reset before each new exposure because the
read process is non-destructive. There are many other reasons why it
won't work, or would be difficult to implement, but destructive read
isn't one of them.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

ransley wrote in
:

On Sep 16, 8:53*am, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 16/09/2010 12:40, ransley wrote:





On Sep 16, 1:35 am,
wrote:
Here's a thought on processing those pixels of info that comprise
a pi
cture
(TAKEN with just one picture cycle) . *Integrate each time period
wi
th an
exposure of x seconds. take next picture in camera, in intervals
of readings between time x1 and time x2. *Continue on with
differential
s of
image gathering by watching the cells as they collect photons of
light
in
specified time periods. Make the sampling period vary according to
the dynamic range of the picture i.e. the more photons collected
should ki
ck in
a formula for desensitizing the sensor when a certain plateau of
brigh
ness
is reached. *It's like compressing the low and high ends to better
represent actual camera dynamic range with what is actually being
seen
. *I
don't know if monitors can represent the full range of colors and
intensities, but there should be some kind of tradeoff between
squeezi
ng
picture brightness/darkness towards a more palipable realistic
look an
d
getting a picture that actually looks like what it did when you
took i
t.

Pointers on photograpy tips appreciated.
* Thanks.
--
__
SneakyP
To email me, you know what to do.

Supernews, if you get a complaint from a Jamie Baillie, please
see:htt
p://www.canadianisp.ca/jamie_baillie.html

Yea, watch cells as they collect photons of light, you are smokin
some good stuff.

Actually that device is a real invention dating back to the late
1970's and called the Image Photon Counting System. Cunning system
design and obvious limitations. Developed by Alan Boksenberg at
Imperial College London during the 1970's and derivatives are still
in use today at ING and a few other large observatories for
specialised low signal imaging. Obviously it is useless at high light
levels you have to be able to count each photon arrival and determine
the centroid of the spot.

http://www.ing.iac.es/Astronomy/obse...manuals/genera.
..

Smoking good stuff is not required. It was absolutely ground breaking
when it first came out and was nick-named Instant Paper Creation
System. Compared to film it was streets ahead in sensitivity and
noise floor and it was pretty good for a while after CCDs became
available to astronomers too. It still beats CCDs on noise floor for
some work.

Regards,
Martin Brown- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I believe he was implying using his self endowed power to view
photons.

No powers endowed here. The last thing needed were the snooty replies.

I was merely talking about a concept:

1. Has to be a way to capture a picture of higher dynamic ranges without
resorting to combining two or more different sessions. Nobody seems to
understand that.

2. Since pictures are composed of the collective pixel bed of cells that
"collect" photons as discrete data storage vs. physical film analog
storage, I'da figured the mathematics of adding all the data from each
cell may increase the range of captured light intensity to help
distinguish between what is seen in the real world vs. what is seen in
camera world. Dynamic range is extended.

I know, for instance, that highlight detail compression is nothing more
than applying a curve to the highest intensity light, to recreate
differences between levels and keeping the dark tones from becoming black
at the same time. Hence, the highlight blowout is avoided by highlight
recovery (same difference in the process). The more range a pixel sensor
is allowed to store, the less needed to flush it. But seeing that a high
dynamic range picture doesn't work well with these kinds of sensor
usages, why not enable the read/store of data to a bank and then re-read
the next cycle to add to the prior read set of data.


The real range of RGB shouldn't have to restricted to a range of colors
(2^8 values per channel) and extrapolate those to a screen that by its
nature can only handle 8bit. They should be beyond that, but some seem
to think that the range is adequate.

I'd say, no, I want a picture where you can bump up the intensity to see
what's in the shadows without having (noise) show up badly, or tune down
the intensity to a point where highlited/detailed stuff is revealed
instead of lost in blown-out white pixels.

Just saying. When does that kind of camera processing come out?
Even our eyes have adaptive seeing= they don't blow out highlights when
seeing the shadows in the same field of vision. Our eyesight seems
rather logarithmic as far as compressing dark from light and seeing a
darkened area next to a well lit area. Cameras don't have the ability to
emulate that kind of seeing.




--
__
SneakyP
To email me, you know what to do.

Supernews, if you get a complaint from a Jamie Baillie, please see:
http://www.canadianisp.ca/jamie_baillie.html

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote in news:r3g9m7-
:

Nice idea, won't work. First, reading the cell empties it
irrevocably.

put it into another storage medium to sum up the aggregrate readings.


Second, how do you handle moving objects?

Hopefully the process will be quick enough to thwart blur.


Third,
each reading causes read noise.

Too bad. Adding signal should supress the noise floor.

Fourth, it's kinda hard to read
single cells ... for now you must live with a complete sensor read.

Complete censor states can be re-read after flushing them within a few
nanoseconds time right?


-Wolfgang




--
__
SneakyP
To email me, you know what to do.

Supernews, if you get a complaint from a Jamie Baillie, please see:
http://www.canadianisp.ca/jamie_baillie.html

On 2010-09-22 05:21:07 -0700, Whisky-dave said:

I want free food and free sex.....
and a car[1] that drives and parks itself.

So, you have fantasies of being a teenager again?
Fed at home, sex, well... you have to go for those youthful targets of
opportunity, and the driving problem can be solved by having all sorts
of folks (parents, friends, etc.) do that driving and parking for you.



[1] apparently ford has a car that can park itself.

Not only Ford, there are several high end cars which have parking
systems I believe the most prominent among them being Lexus with some
of their high-end models.
I seem to remember a "TopGear" episode featuring the auto-parking system.


--
Regards,

Savageduck