Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Help for an-ex 35mm guy, please. Username says it all.

Reply
Thread Tools

Help for an-ex 35mm guy, please. Username says it all.

 
 
Pat
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2006
Roger, I am not disputing your charts, but I think they may not
represent the "real world". Take your typical disposable film camera
with technology that is about 100 years old and would make a "Brownie"
seem sophisticated. You buy it preloaded with ASA 400 or 800 film. It
has 1 preset aperature, 1 preset shutter speed, plus maybe a flash with
a GN of 25 (okay maybe 50). It is capable of taking a mediocre picture
under a wide range of situations.

Now take your typical non-dSLR digicam. They blink, click, clatter,
wheeze, cough and practically spit getting ready to take a picture and
might take a second or more to get an image off ... and then it usually
uses too flow of a shutter speed in low light situations. One of the
biggest problems is people blinking or looking goofy because of all of
the foreplay before it takes the picture.

There are a lot of really bright scientists and (maybe) marketers out
there working for all of the camera companies. Everyone is trying to
out do each other to make a cheaper, better, faster, smaller camera.

If the sensor of the digital camera really outdid the film, then
someone would say "hey, wait a minute, let's make a digital camera with
no meter, no adjustable shutter speed, no adjustable aperature, no
focus", etc. etc. They could basically couple the operations of a
disposable with a sensor and put out a decent P&S for a pretty
reasonable price. Plus it would be as quick as heck with nearly no
latency.

So if the dynamic range is so great, why don't they do that???????
Seems like it would be a nice simple, cheap camera. I contend, with no
proof whatsoever (hey, that's a theory, isn't it), that they do not do
that because it would not work because there is not enough latitude in
the exposure.

What are your thought of it?

Pat.


Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >>Pat wrote:
> >>
> >>>Don't feel like a gigidork. It's a learning curve. Most of the people
> >>>here are strictly digitial and learned that way, but there are some of
> >>>us who remember film. In many ways, film is better. In many others,
> >>>it is not. It's one big trade-off
> >>>Just one work of advice to you that may make you breath easy.
> >>>Don't
> >>>think of it as shooting digital. Think of it as shooting slides. It's
> >>>just about the same thing -- esp. the lack of latidude in the exposure.
> >>
> >>Here we go again. The urban myth just will not die.
> >>1) the response curve of digital matches closely to that of
> >> print film, not slide.

> >
> >
> > So at what would be considered "maximum exposure",
> > where highlights are at or very close to the top end of the
> > linear portion of the curve, there is still a couple fstops of
> > non-linear area under the curve??? That is the significant
> > characteristic of print film.
> >
> > Digital is much more like slide film. Over exposure means the
> > highlight data is *gone*.
> >
> > However...
> >
> >
> >>2) digital sensors have far greater latitude than any
> >> regular print or slide film.

> >
> >
> > That is absolutely true, and Pat's "esp. the lack of latitude in
> > exposure" is not true at all.
> >
> > What the OP needs to consider and use, is that instead of having
> > a couple of fstops up in the non-linear area, there is no
> > non-linear area and those two fstops can, and should, typically
> > be used because they are in fact "extra" dynamic range that
> > digital has over film.
> >
> > Hence while Pat is correct that digital should be treated much
> > like slides, in fact it can (not recommended) be exposed just
> > about like print film simply by under exposing by 2 fstops.
> > Bingo, there's that "latitude"... (and the extra noise).
> >
> > It's like slide film, where "proper exposure" means pushing it
> > right to the edge, but going over produces an obvious disaster.

>
> I disagree. Just like metering for and exposing slide film
> is different than print film, digital is a third method.
> It is the failure to recognize these differences that lead
> people to make false statements like less "latitude"
> or dynamic range. Further, each camera model meters
> scenes differently. If you looked at Figure 8 at:
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2
> and read the paragraph above Figure 3, it says the exposure
> times needed to drive the image into saturation were:
>
> media meter
> slide film: + 0.0 stops,
> 1D Mark II: + 0.3 stops,
> Print Film: + 1.0 stops.
>
> The data in Figure 8 (look at 8B) is set so each
> media type goes to saturation. Now work from
> the brightest to darkest portions of the curves
> (from upper right to lower left). The film
> becomes very noisy at 4 to 5 stops (saturation
> was at 10.5 stops), but the digital is less noisy
> than either film down to 0.5 stops (total 10 stops
> of dynamic range compared to film's 5 to 6 stops).
>
> Other camera models have metering systems that saturate
> at different levels, and it can (not always) differ
> by a stop or so if you record raw or jpeg. For example, my
> canon 10D would blow the highlights on the test chart
> if I metered +0.3 stops. Then if I recorded jpeg, I would
> lose another stop. See Figure 3 at:
> Digital Camera Raw versus Jpeg Conversion Losses
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/raw.versus.jpeg1
> So, depending on the camera, exposing like print film may
> work well or be disastrous.
>
> So proper metering methods:
>
> slide: must be very accurate: you must choose what gets
> lost in the highlights and shadows.
>
> print: more tolerance, can recover some highlights, but
> shadows can appear "muddy" if too underexposed.
>
> digital: highest tolerance (most dynamic range) with
> danger of saturation and loss of information, but can
> recover deep shadows.
> Expose "to the right," meaning watch the histogram and
> have the recorded image set to blink if pixels are saturated.
> If you want to keep the highlights, expose so those
> highlights are on the right side of the histogram plot,
> and no pixels are blinking. Bring up the shadows in
> post processing.
>
> In old film photography books (5+ years ago), one of the
> first chapters is usually about understanding your meter.
> That is not only true today, but it is still as critical
> as ever for great photographs with digital.
>
> Roger


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2006
Pat wrote:

> Roger, if you are coming out of the world of film photography and you
> think of digital as slide film, it's a pretty easy transition. You get
> dead-on exposures and great results. If you think it's Tri-X -- where
> you don't really care if you're off by a couple of f/stops -- then
> you'll hate it. So if he treats it like slide film, he'll be happy
> with the results and wonder what the big deal is all about.


That depends on the camera model and the metering system. When I
got my first DSLR (Canon D60) I shot Canon a Elan 7 along side
the D60 for a while using slide film. The results were not very
good with too many blown highlights. Same when I upgraded to
the 10D. I learned to monitor the histogram and blinking pixel
and found I was often setting the meter compensation to
-1/2 to -1 stops to get correct exposures.
Finally, the 1D Mark II has great metering and responds
well, rarely blowing highlights. I find I will do meter +1/3 to
+2/3 stops, but usually 0.0.

My experience with other cameras, between work and home, I've
used many models extensively. Each model responds
differently and one must get used to the metering and where
that exposes the sensor relative to saturation.

So again, digital is different than print or slide film, and one
must understand the metering in the camera you are using.

> Also, I think the way that digital reacts to light -- how the picture
> look, esp. when viewed on a screen or TV -- is more like looking slide
> film than print film. I think it's something about the direct-positive
> than using a negative process. Digital just has the look of slide
> film, to me.


Well, the characteristic curve data shows the digital response
essentially identical to print film until the film toe is reached
(digital does not have a toe) in the shadows.

> Then there's also the whole "if you burn the upper end you are screwed"
> thing.
>
> Finally, to get the whole dynamic range out of digital, you have quite
> a bit more in the line of work-flow than with film. It is do-able, but
> not as easy as finding a great lab and letting them print your work.
> To start with, you have to have your exposure and contrast adjusted in
> the camera as you are shooting (or shoot RAW), but 99% of the people
> out there don't to that, so they have a limited dynamic range.


Shooting jpeg does not effect dynamic range much (just increased noise
at the low end, so slightly less dynamic range). Some cameras
clip the high end on jpegs (e.g. the 10D) in order to put more bits
into low end. To see the dynamic range of some of jpeg
versus raw, see my previous posted link:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2

But be aware that different raw converters give different
performance, and in some cases a jpeg can actually do better. See
Figures 13 and 14 at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....shadow.detail

> OTOH, there no film out there that is as good in low light as even a
> basic digicam.


While basically I agree, there are workflow changes that are required
to achieve this. For example, one can do an all night exposure
(e.g. 8+ hours in winter), say of stars rotating around the pole
star. You can't do that with any digital camera. But you
can take multiple shorter exposures and add them together.
Astronomers are doing this VERY effectively, pushing limits
unheard of with film. See:
Night and Low Light Photography with Digital Cameras
http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo...ht.photography

Roger
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2006
Pat wrote:

> Roger, I am not disputing your charts, but I think they may not
> represent the "real world". Take your typical disposable film camera
> with technology that is about 100 years old and would make a "Brownie"
> seem sophisticated. You buy it preloaded with ASA 400 or 800 film. It
> has 1 preset aperature, 1 preset shutter speed, plus maybe a flash with
> a GN of 25 (okay maybe 50). It is capable of taking a mediocre picture
> under a wide range of situations.
>
> Now take your typical non-dSLR digicam. They blink, click, clatter,
> wheeze, cough and practically spit getting ready to take a picture and
> might take a second or more to get an image off ... and then it usually
> uses too flow of a shutter speed in low light situations. One of the
> biggest problems is people blinking or looking goofy because of all of
> the foreplay before it takes the picture.
>
> There are a lot of really bright scientists and (maybe) marketers out
> there working for all of the camera companies. Everyone is trying to
> out do each other to make a cheaper, better, faster, smaller camera.
>
> If the sensor of the digital camera really outdid the film, then
> someone would say "hey, wait a minute, let's make a digital camera with
> no meter, no adjustable shutter speed, no adjustable aperature, no
> focus", etc. etc. They could basically couple the operations of a
> disposable with a sensor and put out a decent P&S for a pretty
> reasonable price. Plus it would be as quick as heck with nearly no
> latency.
>
> So if the dynamic range is so great, why don't they do that???????
> Seems like it would be a nice simple, cheap camera. I contend, with no
> proof whatsoever (hey, that's a theory, isn't it), that they do not do
> that because it would not work because there is not enough latitude in
> the exposure.
>
> What are your thought of it?


It's been done:

Digital Cameras Go Disposable
Ritz Camera offers an affordable digital alternative.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/111841-1/article.html

A disposable digital camera enters the market at $19.99
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...edigital_x.htm

Try googling:
disposable digital camera
or
disposable digital camera review

to get many hits.

But sensors in a large size, say 5 megapixels with decent size
pixels are still too expensive for use in cheap disposable
cameras, thus quality is relatively low.

If you would simply set up a film camera viewing a contrasty
scene along side with a digital camera, and take a picture with
each, you would easily see how much cleaner the shadows are
on the digital compared to any print or slide film you use,
assuming a decent modern digital camera.

Or just look at figure 5 at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2

Roger

 
Reply With Quote
 
Pat
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2006
Okay, let me propose a "real world" test we can each do, if you are up
to it. It should be interesting.

Both of us (or is it each of us) will buy a disposable camera without a
flash. Your choice as to whether it is ASA 400 or 800, but they should
be the same. Let's not use a flash so we don't have to worry about
different guide numbers.

I'm not sure I have a lens as wide as what comes on the disposables,
but each/both of us will throw on a wide-ange and use it as as close to
the disposable as we can.

We will set our cameras to the proper ASA/ISO and a shutter speed of
1/100th. We will start with a high-overcast scene or an evening scene
and meter it to get a good exposure. This will be our exposure for the
test with no adjustments to shutter speed or aperature.

We will shoot in the largest JPG size available on the camera.

We with take both cameras and shoot a variety of scenes for the 24/27
exposures of the disposables. 1 pic each scene from each camera.

If you can think of any other controls we can throw in, let me know.

Then, we will process the film using Kodak processing and get a Kodak
picture disk (other brands are notoriously unreliable and crude out
here). Then we will post both sets of pictures with NO manipulation to
our web sites for side-by-side comparision in a week or so.

Then we can see under what circumstances which media acts better and
which (if either) has more versitility (I hesitate to use "dynamic
range").

Since neither of us own digital camera or film factories (at least I
don't), neither of us have a vested interest one way or the other, so
it'll be just and interesting experiment to see what happens. Like all
good experiments, I have no idea which outcome will be better.

You are the scientist with lots of great charts. I'm the pragmatist
who "knows what I see". We'll see what happens when, as they say, the
rubber hits the road.

Pat.




Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> Pat wrote:
>
> > Roger, I am not disputing your charts, but I think they may not
> > represent the "real world". Take your typical disposable film camera
> > with technology that is about 100 years old and would make a "Brownie"
> > seem sophisticated. You buy it preloaded with ASA 400 or 800 film. It
> > has 1 preset aperature, 1 preset shutter speed, plus maybe a flash with
> > a GN of 25 (okay maybe 50). It is capable of taking a mediocre picture
> > under a wide range of situations.
> >
> > Now take your typical non-dSLR digicam. They blink, click, clatter,
> > wheeze, cough and practically spit getting ready to take a picture and
> > might take a second or more to get an image off ... and then it usually
> > uses too flow of a shutter speed in low light situations. One of the
> > biggest problems is people blinking or looking goofy because of all of
> > the foreplay before it takes the picture.
> >
> > There are a lot of really bright scientists and (maybe) marketers out
> > there working for all of the camera companies. Everyone is trying to
> > out do each other to make a cheaper, better, faster, smaller camera.
> >
> > If the sensor of the digital camera really outdid the film, then
> > someone would say "hey, wait a minute, let's make a digital camera with
> > no meter, no adjustable shutter speed, no adjustable aperature, no
> > focus", etc. etc. They could basically couple the operations of a
> > disposable with a sensor and put out a decent P&S for a pretty
> > reasonable price. Plus it would be as quick as heck with nearly no
> > latency.
> >
> > So if the dynamic range is so great, why don't they do that???????
> > Seems like it would be a nice simple, cheap camera. I contend, with no
> > proof whatsoever (hey, that's a theory, isn't it), that they do not do
> > that because it would not work because there is not enough latitude in
> > the exposure.
> >
> > What are your thought of it?

>
> It's been done:
>
> Digital Cameras Go Disposable
> Ritz Camera offers an affordable digital alternative.
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/111841-1/article.html
>
> A disposable digital camera enters the market at $19.99
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...edigital_x.htm
>
> Try googling:
> disposable digital camera
> or
> disposable digital camera review
>
> to get many hits.
>
> But sensors in a large size, say 5 megapixels with decent size
> pixels are still too expensive for use in cheap disposable
> cameras, thus quality is relatively low.
>
> If you would simply set up a film camera viewing a contrasty
> scene along side with a digital camera, and take a picture with
> each, you would easily see how much cleaner the shadows are
> on the digital compared to any print or slide film you use,
> assuming a decent modern digital camera.
>
> Or just look at figure 5 at:
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2
>
> Roger


 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2006
Pat wrote:

> Okay, let me propose a "real world" test we can each do, if you are up
> to it. It should be interesting.
>
> Both of us (or is it each of us) will buy a disposable camera without a
> flash. Your choice as to whether it is ASA 400 or 800, but they should
> be the same. Let's not use a flash so we don't have to worry about
> different guide numbers.
>
> I'm not sure I have a lens as wide as what comes on the disposables,
> but each/both of us will throw on a wide-ange and use it as as close to
> the disposable as we can.
>
> We will set our cameras to the proper ASA/ISO and a shutter speed of
> 1/100th. We will start with a high-overcast scene or an evening scene
> and meter it to get a good exposure. This will be our exposure for the
> test with no adjustments to shutter speed or aperature.
>
> We will shoot in the largest JPG size available on the camera.
>
> We with take both cameras and shoot a variety of scenes for the 24/27
> exposures of the disposables. 1 pic each scene from each camera.
>
> If you can think of any other controls we can throw in, let me know.
>
> Then, we will process the film using Kodak processing and get a Kodak
> picture disk (other brands are notoriously unreliable and crude out
> here). Then we will post both sets of pictures with NO manipulation to
> our web sites for side-by-side comparision in a week or so.
>
> Then we can see under what circumstances which media acts better and
> which (if either) has more versitility (I hesitate to use "dynamic
> range").
>
> Since neither of us own digital camera or film factories (at least I
> don't), neither of us have a vested interest one way or the other, so
> it'll be just and interesting experiment to see what happens. Like all
> good experiments, I have no idea which outcome will be better.
>
> You are the scientist with lots of great charts. I'm the pragmatist
> who "knows what I see". We'll see what happens when, as they say, the
> rubber hits the road.


Pat,
That would be an interesting test. Due to work schedules
I will not be able to do the test for a few weeks (near
the end of August).

Roger
 
Reply With Quote
 
Pat
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2006
Okay, I'll pick up a disposable and start the process. I'm not going
out of my way to take any pics, just what is around. Then I'll post
them and you can "replicate" the experiement.


Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> Pat wrote:
>
> > Okay, let me propose a "real world" test we can each do, if you are up
> > to it. It should be interesting.
> >
> > Both of us (or is it each of us) will buy a disposable camera without a
> > flash. Your choice as to whether it is ASA 400 or 800, but they should
> > be the same. Let's not use a flash so we don't have to worry about
> > different guide numbers.
> >
> > I'm not sure I have a lens as wide as what comes on the disposables,
> > but each/both of us will throw on a wide-ange and use it as as close to
> > the disposable as we can.
> >
> > We will set our cameras to the proper ASA/ISO and a shutter speed of
> > 1/100th. We will start with a high-overcast scene or an evening scene
> > and meter it to get a good exposure. This will be our exposure for the
> > test with no adjustments to shutter speed or aperature.
> >
> > We will shoot in the largest JPG size available on the camera.
> >
> > We with take both cameras and shoot a variety of scenes for the 24/27
> > exposures of the disposables. 1 pic each scene from each camera.
> >
> > If you can think of any other controls we can throw in, let me know.
> >
> > Then, we will process the film using Kodak processing and get a Kodak
> > picture disk (other brands are notoriously unreliable and crude out
> > here). Then we will post both sets of pictures with NO manipulation to
> > our web sites for side-by-side comparision in a week or so.
> >
> > Then we can see under what circumstances which media acts better and
> > which (if either) has more versitility (I hesitate to use "dynamic
> > range").
> >
> > Since neither of us own digital camera or film factories (at least I
> > don't), neither of us have a vested interest one way or the other, so
> > it'll be just and interesting experiment to see what happens. Like all
> > good experiments, I have no idea which outcome will be better.
> >
> > You are the scientist with lots of great charts. I'm the pragmatist
> > who "knows what I see". We'll see what happens when, as they say, the
> > rubber hits the road.

>
> Pat,
> That would be an interesting test. Due to work schedules
> I will not be able to do the test for a few weeks (near
> the end of August).
>
> Roger


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
loginview control displays network username instead of (web) username Shailesh Patel ASP .Net Web Controls 0 11-08-2006 08:19 PM
Most 35mm format lenses can't cover 35mm full frame DSLR? einst_stein@yahoo.com Digital Photography 8 06-03-2005 11:25 PM
Dell says no & Acronis says maybe sysprep utility ( Re: Anyone use Acronis Drive Image 7.0? Bobby Fischler Computer Support 0 07-24-2004 12:12 AM
Change the username found in "C:\Documents and Settings\Username" The Reluctant Robot Named Jude Computer Support 1 05-05-2004 07:11 AM
Help - digital transfer of 35mm film o r b s c u r e DDJ Digital Photography 2 07-11-2003 05:14 PM



Advertisments