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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
David J Taylor wrote: Philip Homburg wrote: Which means that quantisation noise corresponds to 0.5 * 40e3 / 2**12 = 4.88 electrons. At 25 electrons or more, shot-noise exceeds quantisation noise. Yes, in the lighter areas of the picture 12 bits is enough, agreed. But where you see the quantisation noise is in the dark shadow regions. Remember that the eye's response isn't linear, but more like log. Except that according to this calculation, quantisation noise exceeds photon shot noise only at output levels 0, 1, and 2. At level 3 you have 3 * 40e3/4095 = 29.3 electrons, which gives a photon shot noise of 5.41 electrons. Which is more than 0.5 LSB. -- That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Philip Homburg wrote:
In article , David J Taylor wrote: Philip Homburg wrote: Which means that quantisation noise corresponds to 0.5 * 40e3 / 2**12 = 4.88 electrons. At 25 electrons or more, shot-noise exceeds quantisation noise. Yes, in the lighter areas of the picture 12 bits is enough, agreed. But where you see the quantisation noise is in the dark shadow regions. Remember that the eye's response isn't linear, but more like log. Except that according to this calculation, quantisation noise exceeds photon shot noise only at output levels 0, 1, and 2. At level 3 you have 3 * 40e3/4095 = 29.3 electrons, which gives a photon shot noise of 5.41 electrons. Which is more than 0.5 LSB. Yes, but level 3 corresponds to the sensor output of 87, so there is quite a lot lost. People have measured this (but not me). David |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
DoN. Nichols wrote:
Not a consideration on the Cannon, but my Nikon D70 has a minimum ISO of 200, and this prevents me from shooting at the highest magnification range of the old 200mm Medical Nikkor (with the built-in ring flash). It does the exposure calculation based on an ISO (actually marked as ASA) setting ring, and a magnification ratio ring, resulting in setting of the aperture ring. The lens is capable of going down to a 3X magnification ratio, but the closest that I can get at present is a 2/3X magnification ratio because of the exposure situation. I really need to modify the power pack to reduce the flash power enough for those closer shots. ND filter. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote: DoN. Nichols wrote: Not a consideration on the Cannon, but my Nikon D70 has a minimum ISO of 200, and this prevents me from shooting at the highest magnification range of the old 200mm Medical Nikkor (with the built-in ring flash). It does the exposure calculation based on an ISO (actually marked as ASA) setting ring, and a magnification ratio ring, resulting in setting of the aperture ring. The lens is capable of going down to a 3X magnification ratio, but the closest that I can get at present is a 2/3X magnification ratio because of the exposure situation. I really need to modify the power pack to reduce the flash power enough for those closer shots. ND filter. As I already mentioned elsewhere in this thread, this lens is a bit weird. Start off with a 200mm f5.6 lens, but mount it so it is fixed focus, at a 1:15 ratio (10' 11.9" or 3.35 meters. Now -- supply a set of close-up lenses which must screw into the front of the lens -- defined as 1/8X, 1/6X, 1/4X, 1/2X, 1X & 2X. To get the intermediate values, stacking specific CU lens pairs is defined: 1/3X = 1/4 + 1/6 2/3X = 1/2 + 1/4 1.5X = 1 + 1/2 3 X = 2 + 1 The only place where I need the reduced light is in the range from 1 to 3. Note that the 2X CU lens has a rather pronounced front element curvature, and thus also has no front female filter thread. This means that the ND filter must be placed between the prime lens and the first CU lens, or between the two CU lenses for the 2X or 3X settings. I'm not sure about stacking that many elements, and flare would be lower with the ND filter as the frontmost element, which is not an option when the 2X CU lens is in use. Also -- the filter thread is a bit weird. IIRC, I measured it at something like 37.6 mm, so I'm not at all sure that I could get such a filter, except as a custom, or with a reducing ring, which would mean that I would need the opposite converter ring to continue on to the 2X element. So -- overall, I think that I would get better shots with a modification to the flash power supply. If you want to see what this is like, here is one which just closed on eBay: Auction #: 7536353068 Full URL: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=7536353068 Thanks, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
DoN. Nichols wrote: Not a consideration on the Cannon, but my Nikon D70 has a minimum ISO of 200, and this prevents me from shooting at the highest magnification range of the old 200mm Medical Nikkor (with the built-in ring flash). It does the exposure calculation based on an ISO (actually marked as ASA) setting ring, and a magnification ratio ring, resulting in setting of the aperture ring. What may work is to set the shutter speed sufficiently high that only part of the flash output is captured . This works on the D1 (though I didn't try it with a medical Nikkor), and I think that it is also supposed to work with a D70. -- That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
In article , wrote:
In message , (DoN. Nichols) wrote: [ ... Medical Nikkor flash overexposure on Nikon D70 ... ] O.K. Note that the chart which comes with the lens suggest that for 2:1 reproduction ratio, a maximum ASA (now ISO) of 50 is suggested for color, and 25 for B&W. (This is an old lens system, of course.) The chart is incomplete, but it looks like it will require an ASA of 25 (or perhaps 32) with the full 3:1 ratio, so I may have to cut the illumination anyway. I can't see pushing it that far down. I suggest that you try putting some magenta filters cut out from clear magenta sheets of file folders or something. I use "Flomo" folders; two sheets thick of their magenta folder over my Canon 550EX gives the flash almost the exact color that is native to the camera's channel sensitivities. Now *this* makes sense. Filtering at the flash output, instead of in the stack of close-up lenses at the input makes a *lot* more sense here. I'm not familiar with the "Flomo" folders. Would I find them at my local "Staples" or some similar office supply store? The next trick would be to find some form of neutral density filter material in a similar cuttable form. The noise is less chromatic when you do this, and weaker to boot, so the shadows are much quieter. A neutral density on the lens will cut all three color channels equally, but ideally, for the D70, you want to cut the green the most, and the red the least. If the lighting is mixed with daylight or tungsten ambient, then a filter on the lens may do the trick. As explained elsewhere, a filter on the lens seems to not be an option, but the exposure problem only occurs in the extreme close-ups, between 0.66:1 and 3:1 ratios, and there, even with the filtering, the flash will predominate. The lens stops down to about f45, and that is where we are with the extreme close-ups. I shoot in daylight with a Hoya FLD filter, which doesn't get white balance perfectly native, but gets it closer. A double-strength FLD would probably be perfect for the 20D, 10D, D70, or any other DSLR with the same general color channel sensitivity. I haven't experimented with the Tiffen magenta filters or the Cokins yet (of course, the Cokins wouldn't work with your specialty lens). Hmm ... perhaps make a mount at the *rear* of the lens? If there is enough room so the mirror won't hit it? If you want to see what's really going on, get a matte white target, and take a picture at each ISO with it, at the magnifications in question, in RAW, and then load the RAW files into IRIS which will show the exact RAW values, and you can calculate how much headroom you have at a given ISO. Do this both with and without a magenta filter over the flash. O.K. IRIS is probably not an option, as I am using unix machines, not Windows or Macs, but the capability exists in other programs which I *do* have. And this all started out in answering a question as to why you would want to shoot at ISO 100 (if possible). :-) Thanks much, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
In article coh.net,
Philip Homburg wrote: In article , DoN. Nichols wrote: Not a consideration on the Cannon, but my Nikon D70 has a minimum ISO of 200, and this prevents me from shooting at the highest magnification range of the old 200mm Medical Nikkor (with the built-in ring flash). It does the exposure calculation based on an ISO (actually marked as ASA) setting ring, and a magnification ratio ring, resulting in setting of the aperture ring. What may work is to set the shutter speed sufficiently high that only part of the flash output is captured . This works on the D1 (though I didn't try it with a medical Nikkor), and I think that it is also supposed to work with a D70. I'll try that. That sounds like a good option, as does the suggestion of cutting out filters to fit over the ring flash instead of over the lens itself. Thanks, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DSLR v Consumer Image quality | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 303 | March 3rd 05 12:56 AM |
best compression for saving photos in jpeg? | Brian | Digital Photography | 14 | December 24th 04 12:59 PM |
Question about Quality of Digital Camera Photos | David | 35mm Photo Equipment | 12 | November 21st 04 09:30 AM |
Nikon D70 image quality hypothetical question | J Stryker | 35mm Photo Equipment | 11 | August 3rd 04 05:14 PM |
THE Difference Between Good Quality and Poor Quality Pictures! | N.E.1. | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 3 | September 23rd 03 03:14 AM |