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
|
|||
|
|||
high dynamic range in P&S ??
Hi there,
I am using Panasonic LX1 for several months already. Now I know what camera I want. I want a rather compact P&S with a high dynamic range. E.g. I would like to take the pictures of the building half of which is Sun-lit, and the other part is covered with shadow. I heard that Fuji released their SuperCCD IV SR sensor where each pixel consists of two photodiodes (one for low light, and another for intense light). They released the compact P&S utilizing this sensor such as Fujifilm FinePix F700/710. However, it is not sold anymore, and I could not find a second-hand one through ebay. Any other suggestions ? Thanks. ... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
high dynamic range in P&S ??
minnesotti wrote:
Hi there, I am using Panasonic LX1 for several months already. Now I know what camera I want. I want a rather compact P&S with a high dynamic range. E.g. I would like to take the pictures of the building half of which is Sun-lit, and the other part is covered with shadow. I heard that Fuji released their SuperCCD IV SR sensor where each pixel consists of two photodiodes (one for low light, and another for intense light). They released the compact P&S utilizing this sensor such as Fujifilm FinePix F700/710. However, it is not sold anymore, and I could not find a second-hand one through ebay. Any other suggestions ? Thanks. I had an F700 for a while and now I have an LX1. The difference in dynamic range between the 2 cameras doesn't seem to be that huge in in-camera JPEGs, though I haven't tested this directly. There IS a difference when you work with RAW files, because the F700 gives you output from both types of sensors, but Fuji doesn't provide a good RAW converter, so you have to work with 3rd-party, enthusiast-written sortware. Another problem is that the F700's RAW files are HUUUUGE - around 20 or 30MB, IIRC. That said, the LX1 is a MUCH better camera than the F700 - better lens, better picture quality, better controls. The F700 is really a 3MP camera, interpolated to 6MP. The successor to the F700 was the F810, with higher resolution, but I don't think that camera is produced anymore, either. You should know that the F700 (and probably the SuperCCD chip itself) had big reliability problems. There was a service bulletin/recall to fix cameras with screwed up CCDs that produced unrecognizable purple and green photos. This happened to my first F700 - on the first day of a 4-day hiking trip - but the serial number of the camera wasn't covered by the recall, so I was screwed. I got a replacement F700 on eBay, but a few months later the shutter speed control got screwed up and the camera wouldn't take pictures faster than about 1/200, no matter what the shutter settings were. No more Fujis for me... -Gniewko |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
high dynamic range in P&S ??
"minnesotti" wrote in message oups.com... Hi there, I am using Panasonic LX1 for several months already. Now I know what camera I want. I want a rather compact P&S with a high dynamic range. E.g. I would like to take the pictures of the building half of which is Sun-lit, and the other part is covered with shadow. I heard that Fuji released their SuperCCD IV SR sensor where each pixel consists of two photodiodes (one for low light, and another for intense light). They released the compact P&S utilizing this sensor such as Fujifilm FinePix F700/710. However, it is not sold anymore, and I could not find a second-hand one through ebay. Any other suggestions ? Thanks. Dynamic range is determined mainly by the sensor size (physical size, not the number of pixels). Get the biggest sensor and shoot RAW for the best D.R. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
high dynamic range in P&S ??
Lack of dynamic range is the 800 pound gorilla lurking behind all digital
sensor technology regardless of sensor size. Some published reports suggest a tolerance of no more than one tenth of an f-stop to overexposure. Hence camera makers go to all kinds of lengths to increase the apparent dynamic range by fundamentally using underexposure, exposing for the highlights and amplifying mid and low range signals. Using raw you can control this process to some degree yourself. However realize that while the eyeball is estimated to have an 11-18 fstop dynamic range this is really an illusion as well. Your eye shifts concentration rapidly to different areas, pupil diameters change, and the brain fuses all this information, plus filling in the gaps with what you expect you should be seeing based on past experience, to yield what appears to be a massive dynamic range field of view. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
high dynamic range in P&S ??
"bmoag" wrote:
Some published reports suggest a tolerance of no more than one tenth of an f-stop to overexposure. It had better be at least that tight! Hence camera makers go to all kinds of lengths to increase the apparent dynamic range by fundamentally using underexposure, exposing for the highlights and amplifying mid and low range signals. None of that will increase "apparent dynamic range". And saying they both underexpose and expose for the highlights is a misunderstanding of exposure technical details. It is not something that *camera makers* do anyway. It is close (but not quite right) for a description of the best technique that a photographer can use to assure exposure that makes maximum use of the dynamic range available from a digital camera, whatever its dynamic range is. Basically the technique is to set exposure so that the brightest highlight _with_ _desired_ _detail_ is at maximum. That will do two things. 1) clip on any highlight which is brighter, and 2) provide the most detail possible in the shadows (i.e., it uses the entire dynamic range available). It works for both digital and film, but is excessively difficult to accomplish with film and extremely easy with digital. Using raw you can control this process to some degree yourself. Saving the raw data does allow for "amplifying mid and low range signals", in order to compress the dynamic range of the camera into whatever is available for display (paper, CRT, etc.). The difference between film and digital is that with film you destroy the raw data when the film is processed, and can never do it again. With digital you can re-process the same raw data in many different ways (just as if you re-exposed it on different film or used different developer). The effects obtained are the same, but the actual mechanisms and the ease of accomplishing them are very different between film and digital. However realize that while the eyeball is estimated to have an 11-18 fstop dynamic range this is really an illusion as well. Your eye shifts [snipped] I don't see any significance to discussion of how the eyeball adapts to scene brilliance, since that is *not* normally available via current display technology. "Underexpose and expose for the highlights" is a generic error in perception of exposure. It assumes an "average" scene will be something close to 18% gray, and that the dynamic range of the recording medium can record detail at all brightness levels above that level. Neither are necessarily true, though it commonly works out to be so when film is used with "generic scenes". Hence film photographers have used it as a rule of thumb that they rely on, and settle for "fudging" to adjust when it is not true. (Instance when it is not true are snow scenes, night photography, or scenes with light sources included, e.g.) That works with film simply because film will greatly compress the highlights, thus allowing significant adjustment in post processing to get at least some detail (and often detail in highlights is not significant and can be grossly distorted without damaging the image). The point is that with film and averaging, exposure can be targeted at the middle of the recording medium's dynamic range, and then either shadows or highlights can be "recovered" with post processing when it turns out the average is not actually 18% gray. That is *often* necessary simply because averaging incident light meters are used. The only way to avoid it is to have well calibrated equipment and to use spot metering (which is neither convenient nor quick). A digital sensor does not compress the highlights, but it does have more dynamic range. And there is the huge advantage of immediate feedback to demonstrate the accuracy of the exposure. The point at which highlights are clipped (or not) can easily be set with one or two test exposures (which is much faster and far more accurate than using spot metering). Hence exposure within less than 1/3 an fstop is easily obtained, at *exactly* the point that provides maximum dynamic range. It is *not* "underexposure", but rather is extremely accurate *correct* exposure. The methods for analog an digital are somewhat different, but the desired effect is often exactly the same. It is also true that there are some significant differences in the actual results. That is true because the way that film compresses highlights can of course be used for effect (when accuracy of detail is not significant), while digital's huge amount of highlight detail has the opposite effect (for when great accuracy in the highlights is useful). The shadows suffer identical problems with noise, and digital has the advantage of more dynamic range than film. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
dynamic range and A/D conversion | Johannes | Digital Photography | 18 | September 24th 06 08:25 PM |
How best to see very high dynamic range images | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 6 | August 5th 06 11:08 PM |
ACR 16 bit raw photo conversion | Paul Furman | Digital SLR Cameras | 143 | May 15th 06 02:13 PM |
Latest Kodak sensors have superior Dynamic Range! (on the paper) | RiceHigh | Digital Photography | 29 | March 7th 06 03:42 AM |
Are we ignored regarding dynamic range? | ThomasH | Digital Photography | 43 | January 1st 05 11:32 PM |