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
 
      09-19-2008
Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 4:11 PM:

> 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.


It can compess 10 EIs into 6-7 in the latest emulsions - that
"5 stops" nonsense is just urban myth based on info gathered
8 years ago.
More than enough to do anything you might like with
a colour monitor or printer that can hardly do 6 EIs
in 99% of the cases.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-19-2008
Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 18/09/2008 1:24 AM:
> 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.


"of course much worse" is not a universal truth,
it's just parroting urban myths. I prefer facts.
You should try looking at those instead of believing
everything you find on the net.
Do you believe this guy:
http://fakechuckwestfall.wordpress.com/
as well?
I don't, but he's funny.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Annika1980
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-19-2008
On Sep 19, 8:19*am, Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Do you believe this guy:http://fakechuckwestfall.wordpress.com/
> as well?
> I don't, but he's funny.



I prefer the real one.

http://www.insidedigitalphoto.com/ra...eos-5d-mark-ii
 
Reply With Quote
 
Annika1980
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-19-2008
On Sep 19, 7:49*am, Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> 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".


My point was that anything under about 15,15,15 will print to black
and anything over about 240,240,240 will blow out to white on the
print.

BTW, the dynamic range of the digital greatly exceeds film.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Helen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-19-2008
On Sep 16, 1:57*am, Annika1980 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Here's a full-sized crop of an image I took at the polo match with the
> 40D.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/103209055/original
>
> This image was just as shot and had no post-processing applied to it
> other than cropping.
> Note that the highlights aren't blown and the shadows have little
> detail, but are not quite down to true black.
>
> I'd like to see the film that could give similar results.



Seeing that no post processing was applied, it's very impressive.
It's clear there is a greater range of tonal detail. Great example.
Helen
 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-19-2008
On Sep 19, 2:17*am, Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 4:11 PM:
>
> > 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.

>
> It can compess 10 EIs into 6-7 in the latest emulsions - that
> "5 stops" nonsense is just urban myth based on info gathered
> 8 years ago.
> More than enough to do anything you might like with
> a colour monitor or printer that can hardly do 6 EIs
> in 99% of the cases.


Can you give me the name of this film?

Scott
 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-19-2008
On Sep 19, 1:40*am, Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Nevertheless, it sucks that it is 72MP, doesn't it?
> And no amount of crappola from the likes of you
> is gonna change that.


You could scan it at 8000 ppi and get 288MP, but you would not have
anymore detail.
You have 72MP of soft pixels, if that floats you boat go for it, me I
got 300MP of very sharp pixels,
I could have 1200MP of soft pixels, but what would the point be.

Scott

 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-19-2008
On Sep 19, 4:19*am, Annika1980 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 7:49*am, Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > 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".

>
> My point was that anything under about 15,15,15 will print to black
> and anything over about 240,240,240 will blow out to white on the
> print.


I got to side with Noons on this one, rare but it does happen. What
is the point in having a range of 0 to 255 if you don't use the whole
rangle? Seems to me if a print driver blows out anything pass
240,240,240 to pure white that is a problem with the print driver not
the image.

Scott


 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-19-2008
On Sep 19, 1:11*pm, "David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Scott W" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> On Sep 19, 4:19 am, Annika1980 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>
> > My point was that anything under about 15,15,15 will print to black
> > and anything over about 240,240,240 will blow out to white on the
> > print.

>
> I got to side with Noons on this one, rare but it does happen. *What
> is the point in having a range of 0 to 255 if you don't use the whole
> rangle? * Seems to me if a print driver blows out anything pass
> 240,240,240 to pure white that is a problem with the print driver not
> the image.
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> I think the real issue is that print DR is a less than even 8* stops, so
> it's impossible print so that everything you see on a calibrated
> high-contrast monitor can be seen as clearly on the print. The gray scale
> wedge patterns I've printed all lose it pretty badly in the shadows,
> although the highlights do quite nicely. You have to dodge the shadows if
> you want to see the shadow detail, since bringing up the shadows would
> contrast in the rest of the image. But that doesn't work for a gray scale
> wedge because it just would lose differentiation somewhere else on the
> scale.
>
> *: Truth in advertising: I'm still figuring this stuff out. Numbers are
> subject to change, especially if I put dedicated B&W inks in one of my
> printers.


My own take on this is that 255,255,255 should always print out as
full white, anything less should not, but how far we can see into the
shadows is going to depend on the technology used to show the image.
So I guess I am saying that the white point show be fixed but the
black point is going to change from output to output.

Even with the same monitor I can see much further into the shadows
when viewing at night then during the day.

Scott
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-20-2008
In rec.photo.digital Scott W <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 1:11?pm, "David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> "Scott W" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 19, 4:19 am, Annika1980 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > My point was that anything under about 15,15,15 will print to black
>> > and anything over about 240,240,240 will blow out to white on the
>> > print.

>>
>> I got to side with Noons on this one, rare but it does happen. ?What
>> is the point in having a range of 0 to 255 if you don't use the whole
>> rangle? ? Seems to me if a print driver blows out anything pass
>> 240,240,240 to pure white that is a problem with the print driver not
>> the image.
>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>
>> I think the real issue is that print DR is a less than even 8* stops, so
>> it's impossible print so that everything you see on a calibrated
>> high-contrast monitor can be seen as clearly on the print. The gray scale
>> wedge patterns I've printed all lose it pretty badly in the shadows,
>> although the highlights do quite nicely. You have to dodge the shadows if
>> you want to see the shadow detail, since bringing up the shadows would
>> contrast in the rest of the image. But that doesn't work for a gray scale
>> wedge because it just would lose differentiation somewhere else on the
>> scale.
>>
>> *: Truth in advertising: I'm still figuring this stuff out. Numbers are
>> subject to change, especially if I put dedicated B&W inks in one of my
>> printers.


> My own take on this is that 255,255,255 should always print out as
> full white, anything less should not, but how far we can see into the
> shadows is going to depend on the technology used to show the image.
> So I guess I am saying that the white point show be fixed but the
> black point is going to change from output to output.


> Even with the same monitor I can see much further into the shadows
> when viewing at night then during the day.


And when looking at a good print I can see much further into the
shadows when viewing the print under a very strong light. That's why
when I set my monitor to show me as close to the same as a print I
looked athe monitor in its ideal conditions, which was a dim shaded
room, and the print in its ideal conditions, which was outside in the
garden on a bright day.

--
Chris Malcolm, IPAB, School of Informatics,
Informatics Forum, 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB




 
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