Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!

Reply
Thread Tools

DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!

 
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-17-2008
Draco wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 12:43 AM:



> Hey Noons, Nice work. I thought the "upside" was inverted until I
> looked a little closer. Nice illusion. Keep at it.


Yeah, surprising what happens when one uses
eyes as they are supposed to be used, instead
of just accepting whatever is shown as reality...
Thanks, I certainly shall!



> Velvia 50 6x6? Now that would fill the screen alright.


It does:
http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20107727/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Annika1980
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-17-2008
On Sep 16, 8:44*pm, Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> There is not a single highlight blown in there.
> Thanks for demonstrating you don't have a clue what a
> blown highlight is.



There are areas in all of your shots you posted that are 255,255,255.
There are also areas that are 0,0,0.
Good luck printing those.

In your defense, the pics looked a lot better on my calibrated monitor
at home than my crappy LCD monitor at work.




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-17-2008
On Sep 16, 3:07*pm, Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 8:04 AM:
>
> > Roger Clark did a comparison some time ago
> >http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...ge2/index.html

>
> Funny how that site is "good" to demonstrate
> "bad film" but is "bad" to demonstrate digital
> weak points...
>
> > Had he over exposed the film he might be gotten more shadow detail,
> > but for a normal exposer
> > film, at least Kodak Royal Gold 200, has very poor range in the
> > shadows.

>
> That is indeed true. *And also of most of the
> "comparisons" in most of the sites out there:
> made years ago, with bad scanning technique of bad
> film and badly exposed images. *Not surprising that
> it looks so bad overall...
>
> > Slide film is of course much worse yet.

>
> Actually, it isn't


I am not sure what you are thinking here, slide film has maybe 5 stops
of range, I don't know of any negative film that is that narrow. The
output of some slide film is on the order of 10 stops, because it is
so high in contrast, but the capture range is very small.

Scott
 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-17-2008
On Sep 16, 3:00*pm, Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 2:36 AM:
>
> > In the first one
> >http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...e%20wheels.jpg
> > You can see the film struggling, the sky is full of noise, even with
> > the reduced size image.

>
> Actually, it's called clouds. *Not noise.
> And exactly which detail do you expect to see in clouds in
> the sky? But let's not allow reality to get in the way of
> a good anti-film rant, shall we?
>
> > The shadows have gone to close to black and there is no detail in
> > them.

>
> Actually, the shadows have no noise and are full of detail in the
> high rez version. *But of course shadows are shadows: if you
> expect to see pores in the bricks then it might be a good idea
> to actually take a photo exposed to said bricks?
> Also: I'd love to see what a dslr would do to that corrugated
> iron roof. Most likely it'd be full of moiree...
>
> > If you like the high contrast look that is fine, but it does not show
> > much DR at all.

>
> Doesn't it? Prove it: demonstrate to me where is it that
> you can see high DR? *Of course, do not come back to me
> with an example where all tones are the same intensity:
> that is just the drap watercoloured digital mush that some
> folks call "high dr". *And no: an image made out of multiple
> raw stitched together is NOT high DR: it is just another
> example of watercoloured drab, non-constrasty, non-saturated
> digital mush.
>
> > The other two photos don't show any more DR.

>
> Really? *Why? Did you look at the shadows in the verandas?
>
> > I am not saying the low DR makes them bad photos, just that they don't
> > have much DR. *A whole lot of good photos have been taken over the
> > years with reversal film, and I have very small DR.

>
> Like I said: demonstrate what you call high dr.
> Just claiming that everything in sight is not high dr because
> it is not digital is pretty poor form. *And no: a drab old
> non-contrast dslr image with washed out highlights
> and shadows smeared out of existence by the anti-noise processing
> is NOT an example of high dr.
>
> > Now before you get all mad, I have to say that Bret's photo also is
> > not good at showing high DR, is has some whites in it but no good
> > shadows that are in focus. *Would the 40D have done better on your
> > scene, hard to know.

>
> Exactly. *Problem is: I do have a D80 which has taken a photo
> in the same place, same lens, same exposure parameters.
> I won't post it because it might shock Rita...
>


This is the kind of scene that is good for a test, bright light on the
highlight and very deep shadows.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/103253296/original
If you load that into photoshop and adjust so that you expand the
bottom 20 levels to go from 0 to 255 you will see that there is a lot
of detail in the shadow in those bottom 20 levels.

With the detail there I can, if I wish, pull the detail out of the
shadows with a bit of dodging.

The only real way to compare film vs digital is to shoot the exact
same scene, having someone skilled with digital shooting the digital
shot and someone skilled with film doing the film shot.

I think some negative films could do very well, if they were exposed a
couple of stop passed where most people tend to expose there film.
Slide film would not have a chance IMO.

Over all I don't think DR is a large problem for either film or
digital, but the film fans that keep using the high DR of film as a
reason to shoot film often don't have a clue about what they are
talking about.

Scott
 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-17-2008
On Sep 16, 3:13*pm, Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Draco wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 12:43 AM:
>
> > Hey Noons, Nice work. I thought the "upside" was inverted until I
> > looked a little closer. Nice illusion. Keep at it.

>
> Yeah, surprising what happens when one uses
> eyes as they are supposed to be used, instead
> of just accepting whatever is shown as reality...
> Thanks, I certainly shall!
>
>
> > Velvia 50 6x6? Now that would fill the screen alright.

>
> It does:http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20107727/


Down size that by a factor of 2 and you have one sharp image.

At full resolution it is a bit soft.

An easy test, down size to half and back up, not much difference at
all.

I will point out that the output of DSLRs is not perfectly sharp
either, and will shrapen up with a bit of down sizing, but the limit
for most DSLRs is down sizing by to about 70% or so.

Put it all together and I figure you image would roughly match a DSLR
that had about 25 MP, and a really good lens.

This is still very impressive, just not 72MP impressive.

Of course when comparing a 6x6 camera to a DSLR it all comes down to
what aspect ratio you want, if you what 1:1 then the DSLR is going to
have to crop out 33% of its pixels, if you want 2:3 then the 6x6
camera is going to have to crop out 33% of its pixels.

Scott


 
Reply With Quote
 
Annika1980
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-17-2008
On Sep 17, 2:11*am, Scott W <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > > Slide film is of course much worse yet.

> > Actually, it isn't

>
> I am not sure what you are thinking here,



Dude, you're talking to Noons. Thinking doesn't enter into it.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-19-2008
Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 4:56 PM:

>>> Velvia 50 6x6? Now that would fill the screen alright.

>> It does:http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20107727/

>
> Down size that by a factor of 2 and you have one sharp image.


yeah, sure...

>
> At full resolution it is a bit soft.


ANY digitised image at full resolution
is a "bit soft"! Any other pearls of
idiocy you'd like to share?


> An easy test, down size to half and back up, not much difference at
> all.



yeah sure: downsize and upsize a "lossless" file like jpg?
Are you for real or you think everyone is an idiot?


> I will point out that the output of DSLRs is not perfectly sharp
> either, and will shrapen up with a bit of down sizing, but the limit
> for most DSLRs is down sizing by to about 70% or so.


Sure. Try this:
http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20548136/
****: there goes the 5d2 rez, eh?


> Put it all together and I figure you image would roughly match a DSLR
> that had about 25 MP, and a really good lens.


BWAHAHAHA!
Any other bullshit you'd like to propose?


> This is still very impressive, just not 72MP impressive.


Nevertheless, it sucks that it is 72MP, doesn't it?
And no amount of crappola from the likes of you
is gonna change that.

> Of course when comparing a 6x6 camera to a DSLR it all comes down to
> what aspect ratio you want, if you what 1:1 then the DSLR is going to
> have to crop out 33% of its pixels, if you want 2:3 then the 6x6
> camera is going to have to crop out 33% of its pixels.


wouldn't that be why I provided a cropped image as well?
Or did you miss that little detail in your haste?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-19-2008
Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 1:35 PM:

> There are areas in all of your shots you posted that are 255,255,255.
> There are also areas that are 0,0,0.
> Good luck printing those.


No problem whatsoever. It's called full dynamic range.
Something you dslr users are not familiar with, with
that washed out watercolour stuff you call "photos".

Ever tried to get an image with ANYTHING outside
200,200,200 and 100,100,100?

You should really try it: it's called full dynamic range
and is what reality uses. Your beloved Ansel Adams invented
a thing to help get that called the zone system: it had
quite a few more zones than just 4-6.
That's why his stuff was so impressive. Try producing
images that have more than 150 different steps in tonality,
it's not really that hard and quite rewarding.

>
> In your defense, the pics looked a lot better on my calibrated monitor
> at home than my crappy LCD monitor at work.


I know. If I find a way of making pictures look good
in ANY monitor including the crap people work with most
of the time, I'll let you know!
Try this for REAL detail:
http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20548136/
LOL!

 
Reply With Quote
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-19-2008
Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 4:24 PM:


> This is the kind of scene that is good for a test, bright light on the
> highlight and very deep shadows.
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/103253296/original


Yeah, I know:
http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/art/...mp-02-91534639
is an example. Once again, Superia 400. Not even Velvia
or Astia!


> If you load that into photoshop and adjust so that you expand the
> bottom 20 levels to go from 0 to 255 you will see that there is a lot
> of detail in the shadow in those bottom 20 levels.
>
> With the detail there I can, if I wish, pull the detail out of the
> shadows with a bit of dodging.



Or if you scan for shadows and correct curve for highlights
like I did in the above example, you end up with detail in all
of it. That's DR compression and is what negative film has
been doing for eons.
"compression", because most srgb monitors and printers have
difficulty showing more than about 5-6 EIs, even though
8-bit colour video cards can *theoretically* show 8.



> The only real way to compare film vs digital is to shoot the exact
> same scene, having someone skilled with digital shooting the digital
> shot and someone skilled with film doing the film shot.


Absolutely. Why do you think I have a D80 and film?
I *did* such comparisons regularly. And quite frankly,
there is simply no difference. With film, saturation
is easier to accent. With digital, you get less noise
problems. Overall, DR is the same in both. Medium
format is different, though. I still haven't worked
that one out, still trying to get it under control.

I reserve my opinion on this for raw files from the new
crop of dslrs, like the D700 and the 5D2: 14-bit colour
DR is some really serious stuff! If nothing else,
the resulting compression range will be amazing.


> I think some negative films could do very well, if they were exposed a
> couple of stop passed where most people tend to expose there film.
> Slide film would not have a chance IMO.


Actually, I disagree here. Negative films can do very well,
but need proper placement of exposure in their dynamic range.
Usually this means correct zone system placement, rather than
just the usual "open up 1 stop". Slide film will cover 5-6
EIs easily, which if exposed properly is *more than enough*
for the VAST majority of monitors and printers out there.
Although of course dynamic range compression is less there:
if the scene is more than 6 EIs, you gotta do some trickery
to get slides to cover it.


> Over all I don't think DR is a large problem for either film or
> digital, but the film fans that keep using the high DR of film as a
> reason to shoot film often don't have a clue about what they are
> talking about.


Exactly. In most cases it's not even high DR, it's just
different DR compression levels and ratios.
Most digital displays use 6-7 EIs at best and that's a physical
limit not easily overcome. Even less for most digital printers.
The workaround is to compress a higher DR into that range.
Which can be done with film or digital, it's just a means
to an end.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-19-2008
Gosh! You keep that up and you'll
get moiree, David!


David J. Littleboy wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 4:33 PM:
> "Scott W" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I think some negative films could do very well, if they were exposed a
> couple of stop passed where most people tend to expose there film.
> Slide film would not have a chance IMO.
> <<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> People keep saying that, but I wonder. I suspect that color balance gets out
> of wack (or something else goes wrong) if you overexpose beyond what they
> are designed for. If overxposing were a sensible thing to do, the film mfrs
> would say so. But they don't.


Exactly. I go for correct placement of tones in the
zone scale. Works every single time. When I get
the patience to do it, of course...
 
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
How can I transform source range to destination range that is thesame as source? Lambda C++ 2 07-16-2008 05:18 PM
'ArgumentError: bad value for range' for range of Times David Bird Ruby 1 06-23-2008 12:12 PM
range() is not the best way to check range? Summercoolness@gmail.com Python 46 07-25-2006 08:10 PM
Scene range vs dynamic range Robert Feinman Digital Photography 2 07-04-2005 09:30 PM
Range does not take an Range object. Tomoyuki Kosimizu Ruby 3 11-27-2003 12:42 AM



Advertisments