«

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:40:55 -0400, Bob Donahue wrote:

> I take a lot of pictures at car shows. The digital cameras I've had to
> date, have trouble rendering white cars in direct sunlight. You can't
> see the curves of the body panels, they come out pure white with no
> shading! Cars that are not white come out beautifully. I'm in the market
> for a new "point and shoot" camera. I've narrowed my choice down to the
> Fujifilm FinePix F100fd or the Nikon CoolPix 610. Both of these models
> are advertised as having special "dynamic range" modes. Which one would
> be my best bet for avoiding washed out highlights?

If you shoot jpeg, you have 8 bits of dynamic range (in each RGB
component) - that's it - because that's all the camera's jpeg format will
support. If you shoot raw you'll have 12 bits or more. The discontinued
Kodak P series EVF long zooms will shoot raw as well as jpeg or tiff. You
can frequently find them on Kodak's online store at great prices.

ray wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:40:55 -0400, Bob Donahue wrote:
>
>> I take a lot of pictures at car shows. The digital cameras I've had
>> to date, have trouble rendering white cars in direct sunlight. You
>> can't see the curves of the body panels, they come out pure white
>> with no shading! Cars that are not white come out beautifully. I'm
>> in the market for a new "point and shoot" camera. I've narrowed my
>> choice down to the Fujifilm FinePix F100fd or the Nikon CoolPix 610.
>> Both of these models are advertised as having special "dynamic
>> range" modes. Which one would be my best bet for avoiding washed out
>> highlights?
>
> If you shoot jpeg, you have 8 bits of dynamic range (in each RGB
> component) - that's it - because that's all the camera's jpeg format
> will support. If you shoot raw you'll have 12 bits or more. The
> discontinued Kodak P series EVF long zooms will shoot raw as well as
> jpeg or tiff. You can frequently find them on Kodak's online store at
> great prices.

Ray, you are mistaken here. If anything, JPEG actually offers the greater
dynamic range because it uses non-linear gamma-corrected encoding, as
opposed to the linear coding of RAW. What JPEG lacks, however, is
precision of representing light levels, plus ths "loss" due to compression
(in most JPEGs).

David

John McWilliams wrote:
[]
> RAW files can be converted to a viewable format by non-linear or
> linear, gamma corrected, or not, depending on the software and
> settings of the user.
>
> Saying JPEGs have more dynamic range is simply wrong.

To clarify, John, I was talking about the JPEG files which come straight
from the camera, not those from a RAW to JPEG conversion.

Given the class of camera under consideration (Fuji F100fd and Nikon
Coolpix 610), would you like to name one which uses a linear rather than a
gamma corrected representation in the JPEG? I would be very surprised if
any did.

David

John McWilliams wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> John McWilliams wrote:
>> []
>>> RAW files can be converted to a viewable format by non-linear or
>>> linear, gamma corrected, or not, depending on the software and
>>> settings of the user.
>>>
>>> Saying JPEGs have more dynamic range is simply wrong.
>>
>> To clarify, John, I was talking about the JPEG files which come
>> straight from the camera, not those from a RAW to JPEG conversion.
>>
>> Given the class of camera under consideration (Fuji F100fd and Nikon
>> Coolpix 610), would you like to name one which uses a linear rather
>> than a gamma corrected representation in the JPEG? I would be very
>> surprised if any did.
>
> I am not familiar with either camera, but in any event, it's irrelevant
> to my statement: JPEGs do not have inherently more dynamic range than
> the RAW from which it's processed.
>

It's not your misunderstanding of a camera's dynamic range that matters
as much as whether or not you can display it all in a single picture.

If you consider 3 stops to the left of centre will produce an image from
a RAW file that has detail in white and near white areas and 3 stops to
the right will produce detain in dark areas... It is *impossible* to
display a picture with both the left and right detail *IF* the central
portion is correctly displaying the dynamic range of the sensor.

Where David is (seemingly) unable to elaborate on his statement is when
you and the idiot from the frozen wastes of Canada jumped in and try to
discredit him with twisted bullshit about what you perceive the dynamic
range to be.

Well here's some information for you two, that I suspect neither of you
would prefer to read.

The Dynamic range of a camera is that point at which detail in
highlights and shadows in a correctly exposed image cease - *not* an
image tampered with in Photoshop.

When the detail stops being displayed in light areas and detail stops
being available in dark areas, the dynamic range has been exceeded.

It is entirely possible to manipulate the dynamic range during
processing. The resulting JPEG developed from a RAW file may well exceed
the dynamic range of the camera by a considerable amount - but that is
tampering with the image, not a description of the true dynamic range of
a camera.

When (most) Digital cameras save a JPEG file, it will have had some post
processing done to it by the camera's computer and it *will* exceed the
dynamic range of the camera and therefore the dynamic range of an
unprocessed RAW file. Not enough for those people who refuse to consider
ND filters to control contrast and believe they need a $1000 program to
do it after the shoot.

The fact you may be able to extend the dynamic range of a photo further
that the range of the camera with manipulation of the RAW (or JPEG)
image during development, does not change the fact a RAW file - straight
from the camera - has less dynamic range than a JPEG file - straight
from the camera.

Further to this; Instead of trying to extend the dynamic range of the
camera, it is entirely practical to *compress* the dynamic range in the
camera and avoid the need to post process entirely... Unless of course
you actually enjoy this sort of stuff. I prefer to use Photoshop to
produce art photos rather than recover disasters that could have been
avoided with knowledge of photography.

Alan Browne wrote:
[]
> JPG's 8 bits/color is compressed DR, not more DR. The 'loss' is in
> graduation 'tween colors. JPG cannot contain an expression of more
> information than the original raw, compressed or otherwise.
>
> The key point is that in-camera JPG leaves you with much less in terms
> of options than post-processed raw.

With an 8-bit linear coding, the ratio between maximum and minimum signal
level is 255:1.

The typical RAW data is 12-bit or 14-1bit, having a ratio of max/min of
4095:1 or 16383:1.

With JPEG, taking 2.2 as the typical gamma correction, the ratio is
255^2.2:1, or about 200,000:1.

Agreed that JPEG compromises on the accuracy with which any particular
brightness can be represented, but the range of values which can be
represented is greater with JPEG than RAW.

Cheers,
David

John McWilliams wrote:
[]
> I am not familiar with either camera, but in any event, it's
> irrelevant to my statement: JPEGs do not have inherently more dynamic
> range than the RAW from which it's processed.

Of course not, but on its own, JPEG has the greater dynamic range. See my
earlier post for the numbers.

David

Shon Kei Picture company wrote:
[]
> Where David is (seemingly) unable to elaborate on his statement is
> when you and the idiot from the frozen wastes of Canada jumped in and
> try to discredit him with twisted bullshit about what you perceive
> the dynamic range to be.

I have given the numbers which justify my statement in a posting this
morning.

> Well here's some information for you two, that I suspect neither of
> you would prefer to read.
>
> The Dynamic range of a camera is that point at which detail in
> highlights and shadows in a correctly exposed image cease - *not* an
> image tampered with in Photoshop.
[]

The part of the definition which is critical here is "cease". What do we
mean by "cease", and is there a standard definition? With a typical
digital camera, in the raw file, once the maximum value is exceeded,
that's it. No more dynamic range. With film, it's a gradual compression,
so what percent contrast or whatever is used? Again, with digital, what
contrast is used at the low end? Should we call the toe of the dynamic
range where a 20% contrast can still be perceived (i.e. relative light
values of 100 and 120 produce distinct levels in the RAW file)?

Is there anything from film photography which can be carried across
meaningfully to digital to help in a more useful dynamic range definition?

David

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 05:42:50 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-> wrote:
: John McWilliams wrote:
: []
: > I am not familiar with either camera, but in any event, it's
: > irrelevant to my statement: JPEGs do not have inherently more dynamic
: > range than the RAW from which it's processed.
:
: Of course not, but on its own, JPEG has the greater dynamic range. See my
: earlier post for the numbers.

But no camera currently in production captures more information for its JPEGs
than for its RAW images, right? So what practical difference does JPEG's
theoretically greater dynamic range make?

Bob

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 05:40:18 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
> []
>> JPG's 8 bits/color is compressed DR, not more DR. The 'loss' is in
>> graduation 'tween colors. JPG cannot contain an expression of more
>> information than the original raw, compressed or otherwise.
>>
>> The key point is that in-camera JPG leaves you with much less in terms
>> of options than post-processed raw.
>
> With an 8-bit linear coding, the ratio between maximum and minimum
> signal level is 255:1.
>
> The typical RAW data is 12-bit or 14-1bit, having a ratio of max/min of
> 4095:1 or 16383:1.
>
> With JPEG, taking 2.2 as the typical gamma correction, the ratio is
> 255^2.2:1, or about 200,000:1.
>
> Agreed that JPEG compromises on the accuracy with which any particular
> brightness can be represented, but the range of values which can be
> represented is greater with JPEG than RAW.
>
> Cheers,
> David

Since, as I understand it, a RAW file is basically a dump of the sensor
data, you can't do any better than that. Theoretical limitations are one
thing - practical applications are another.

Robert Coe wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 05:42:50 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-> wrote:
>> John McWilliams wrote:
>> []
>>> I am not familiar with either camera, but in any event, it's
>>> irrelevant to my statement: JPEGs do not have inherently more
>>> dynamic range than the RAW from which it's processed.
>>
>> Of course not, but on its own, JPEG has the greater dynamic range.
>> See my earlier post for the numbers.
>
> But no camera currently in production captures more information for
> its JPEGs than for its RAW images, right? So what practical
> difference does JPEG's theoretically greater dynamic range make?
>
> Bob

Well, if you recall, someone stated, and I paraphrase, that "JPEGs are
8-bit but RAW is 12-bit", and it's that blunt statement which does not
tell the whole story.

David