Digital camera (P&S or DSLR) with built in HDR feature

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by aniramca@gmail.com, Sep 12, 2007.

  1. Guest

    I am just wondering whether HDR feature can be embedded in their image
    processing (or using a special sensor) in a digital camera. Is this
    possible? Will it likely be included in future cameras - just another
    feature or option before taking the photos? Or is such a digital
    camera already here? I know some people will ask this necessity as
    there are softwares (photoshop CS, Photomatix, and many others) that
    can do this job as a post processing. It is fine for them who spend
    hundred of hours playing around with 20 MB RAW photo files, and do a
    lot of post processing, etc. Unfortunately, there are likely others
    like me who must do something else to make a living (i.e. not a
    professional) and there are not enough hours in a day to spend the
    time post-processing photos. If I have to do this, it means that I
    have to cut my sleep, or let the grass in my yard grows. (This is
    another reason that I keep having a nagging question about the digital
    camera which has better processing engine than the others, so that it
    can give me the better quality and rich colour photos without spending
    extra time to play around with in teh computer).
    Thanks for info
    , Sep 12, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. DBLEXPOSURE Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I am just wondering whether HDR feature can be embedded in their image
    > processing (or using a special sensor) in a digital camera. Is this
    > possible? Will it likely be included in future cameras - just another
    > feature or option before taking the photos? Or is such a digital
    > camera already here? I know some people will ask this necessity as
    > there are softwares (photoshop CS, Photomatix, and many others) that
    > can do this job as a post processing. It is fine for them who spend
    > hundred of hours playing around with 20 MB RAW photo files, and do a
    > lot of post processing, etc. Unfortunately, there are likely others
    > like me who must do something else to make a living (i.e. not a
    > professional) and there are not enough hours in a day to spend the
    > time post-processing photos. If I have to do this, it means that I
    > have to cut my sleep, or let the grass in my yard grows. (This is
    > another reason that I keep having a nagging question about the digital
    > camera which has better processing engine than the others, so that it
    > can give me the better quality and rich colour photos without spending
    > extra time to play around with in teh computer).
    > Thanks for info
    >


    That is a huge paragraph.

    Including a pre-programmed HDR mode might be a good idea but, that would
    take all the fun out of it. In someways, the mode is already at your
    fingertips. Most cameras designed for photographers, (not point-and-shoot),
    have the ability to automatically bracket the exposure.

    At any rate, what is so difficult about ratcheting the shutter speed up or
    down as you make your exposures?
    DBLEXPOSURE, Sep 12, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Somebody Guest

    Not until digital cameras start using computer CPU's and not the little
    calculator like ones they do use (process power, I am not saying they are
    using a calculator processor, just one that is about as powerful when
    compared to the processor in our computers).

    Combining images in to an HDR image would require major processing power and
    a considerable amount of RAM. Both things digital cameras have very little
    of. More of both however would be nice. They could do some really good menu
    interfaces, trully powerful black and white conversion instead of just
    desaturating the color image and more. Imagine a dSLR with an ISO of 20,000
    with noise ninja noise reduction? It would certainly open the door for some
    interesting things. But, would also increase the cost of a camera by $500 to
    $1000.

    Somebody!
    Somebody, Sep 12, 2007
    #3
  4. Arnold D. Guest

    On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:07:31 -0700, "Somebody" <> wrote:

    >They could do some really good menu
    >interfaces, trully powerful black and white conversion instead of just
    >desaturating the color image and more.


    You must be using some older cameras or something. One that I tested for this
    doesn't just desaturate the image for B&W modes. Comparing two images taken of
    the same color chart, one taken in color and another in B&W mode, then using a
    channel mixer in an editor to make the color image's color squares match the
    gray levels in the B&W image's respective gray squares. It came out to be the
    same proportions as if seen by the eye or if doing B&W darkroom work. From
    memory, the channels in the color photo came out to be something like 21% red,
    64% green, and 15% blue to match the same gray levels in the B&W image. A simple
    desaturation wouldn't cause that. That was the first thing I tried in the editor
    with the color photo, just desaturating it, the gray levels between the two were
    all way off.

    It was one of the Canon PowerShots that I tested for this. I was curious to see
    how they were doing it.
    Arnold D., Sep 12, 2007
    #4
  5. Paul Furman Guest

    Somebody wrote:

    > ...Imagine a dSLR with an
    > ISO of 20,000 with noise ninja noise reduction? It would certainly open
    > the door for some interesting things. But, would also increase the cost
    > of a camera by $500 to $1000.


    Yes, and it's available in the newest models. The $5,000 Nikon D3 for
    example at ISO 25,600 (boosted).

    --
    Paul Furman Photography
    http://edgehill.net
    Bay Natives Nursery
    http://www.baynatives.com
    Paul Furman, Sep 12, 2007
    #5
  6. On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:13:38 -0700, Paul Furman <> wrote:

    >Somebody wrote:
    >
    >> ...Imagine a dSLR with an
    >> ISO of 20,000 with noise ninja noise reduction? It would certainly open
    >> the door for some interesting things. But, would also increase the cost
    >> of a camera by $500 to $1000.

    >
    >Yes, and it's available in the newest models. The $5,000 Nikon D3 for
    >example at ISO 25,600 (boosted).


    Funny that. I bought a Sony camera with NightShot mode over 6 years ago that has
    ISO 3200 in it that's perfectly acceptable and can even take images (and videos,
    even while zooming) and swiftly focus, doing all this in total darkness with
    infrared light alone.

    A $5,000 camera today that can't even do that? You can keep it.

    Boy, do they ever have you people snowballed and brainwashed. Bend over and take
    it with a smile on your face, just as you always do.
    Brandon Grande, Sep 12, 2007
    #6
  7. Paul Furman Guest

    Brandon Grande wrote:

    > On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:13:38 -0700, Paul Furman <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Somebody wrote:
    >>
    >>>...Imagine a dSLR with an
    >>>ISO of 20,000 with noise ninja noise reduction? It would certainly open
    >>>the door for some interesting things. But, would also increase the cost
    >>>of a camera by $500 to $1000.

    >>
    >>Yes, and it's available in the newest models. The $5,000 Nikon D3 for
    >>example at ISO 25,600 (boosted).

    >
    >
    > Funny that. I bought a Sony camera with NightShot mode over 6 years ago that has
    > ISO 3200


    3,200 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 25,600

    and ISO 6,400 without boosting

    > in it that's perfectly acceptable and can even take images (and videos,
    > even while zooming) and swiftly focus, doing all this in total darkness with
    > infrared light alone.
    >
    > A $5,000 camera today that can't even do that? You can keep it.
    >
    > Boy, do they ever have you people snowballed and brainwashed. Bend over and take
    > it with a smile on your face, just as you always do.
    >



    --
    Paul Furman Photography
    http://edgehill.net
    Bay Natives Nursery
    http://www.baynatives.com
    Paul Furman, Sep 12, 2007
    #7
  8. On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:38:55 -0700, Paul Furman <> wrote:

    >Brandon Grande wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:13:38 -0700, Paul Furman <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Somebody wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>...Imagine a dSLR with an
    >>>>ISO of 20,000 with noise ninja noise reduction? It would certainly open
    >>>>the door for some interesting things. But, would also increase the cost
    >>>>of a camera by $500 to $1000.
    >>>
    >>>Yes, and it's available in the newest models. The $5,000 Nikon D3 for
    >>>example at ISO 25,600 (boosted).

    >>
    >>
    >> Funny that. I bought a Sony camera with NightShot mode over 6 years ago that has
    >> ISO 3200

    >
    >3,200 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 25,600
    >
    >and ISO 6,400 without boosting
    >


    1 real f-stop, and 2 fake ones, does not a $4,500 increase in cost, nor a sale,
    make. You are more than welcome to be first in line to buy one. I'll just watch
    and laugh if you don't mind. I'll gladly give up that extremely meager increase
    in favor of the extra capabilities not even in that camera, which I already
    bought over 6 years ago. Put it in perspective. You're being taken for an
    ultimate fool. That must be the new marketing campaign. "Let's see just what
    they are willing to bend over and take, and even be happy about paying for the
    royal reaming we're going to give them." While they laugh all the way to the
    bank at the expense of turning you into an even bigger fool than last year.

    That's *exactly* what it boils down to.
    Brandon Grande, Sep 12, 2007
    #8
  9. ray Guest

    On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:08:31 -0700, aniramca wrote:

    > I am just wondering whether HDR feature can be embedded in their image
    > processing (or using a special sensor) in a digital camera. Is this
    > possible? Will it likely be included in future cameras - just another
    > feature or option before taking the photos? Or is such a digital
    > camera already here? I know some people will ask this necessity as
    > there are softwares (photoshop CS, Photomatix, and many others) that
    > can do this job as a post processing. It is fine for them who spend
    > hundred of hours playing around with 20 MB RAW photo files, and do a
    > lot of post processing, etc. Unfortunately, there are likely others
    > like me who must do something else to make a living (i.e. not a
    > professional) and there are not enough hours in a day to spend the
    > time post-processing photos. If I have to do this, it means that I
    > have to cut my sleep, or let the grass in my yard grows. (This is
    > another reason that I keep having a nagging question about the digital
    > camera which has better processing engine than the others, so that it
    > can give me the better quality and rich colour photos without spending
    > extra time to play around with in teh computer).
    > Thanks for info


    Have you tried simply applying a curve correction to a raw file in
    something like ufraw? It's not full blown hdr, but it can yield some
    fairly impressive results - and it does not take very long - a metter of a
    few seconds.
    ray, Sep 12, 2007
    #9
  10. Paul Furman Guest

    Brandon Grande wrote:
    > Paul Furman wrote:
    >>Brandon Grande wrote:
    >>>Paul Furman wrote:
    >>>>Somebody wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>...Imagine a dSLR with an
    >>>>>ISO of 20,000 with noise ninja noise reduction? It would certainly open
    >>>>>the door for some interesting things. But, would also increase the cost
    >>>>>of a camera by $500 to $1000.
    >>>>
    >>>>Yes, and it's available in the newest models. The $5,000 Nikon D3 for
    >>>>example at ISO 25,600 (boosted).
    >>>
    >>>Funny that. I bought a Sony camera with NightShot mode
    >>>over 6 years ago that has ISO 3200


    I see the old $1,000 Sony DSCF707 with Nightshot at ISO 400 but ISO 3200
    doesn't appear to have come till this spring with the DSC-H9, and
    infrared is different from regular low light photography.


    >>3,200 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 25,600
    >>
    >>and ISO 6,400 without boosting

    >
    > 1 real f-stop, and 2 fake ones, does not a $4,500 increase in cost,
    > nor a sale, make.


    I would guess everything over 800 is pushed on the Sony. That would be
    three stops faster and probably at least another two stops improvement
    possible in the lens, exponentially less shutter lag, etc. Plenty of
    differences. I'm not saying the D3 is a bargain or that I'm going to run
    out & buy it immediately, just that 'Somebody's dream of ISO 20,000 is
    already exceeded if somebody wants that. Personally, I would find a
    clean fast ISO 6400 very useful, the 25600 is in fact barely useable.
    Paul Furman, Sep 12, 2007
    #10
  11. Paul Furman Guest

    ray wrote:

    > On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:08:31 -0700, aniramca wrote:
    >
    >>I am just wondering whether HDR feature can be embedded in their image
    >>processing (or using a special sensor) in a digital camera. Is this
    >>possible? Will it likely be included in future cameras - just another
    >>feature or option before taking the photos? Or is such a digital
    >>camera already here? I know some people will ask this necessity as
    >>there are softwares (photoshop CS, Photomatix, and many others) that
    >>can do this job as a post processing. It is fine for them who spend
    >>hundred of hours playing around with 20 MB RAW photo files, and do a
    >>lot of post processing, etc. Unfortunately, there are likely others
    >>like me who must do something else to make a living (i.e. not a
    >>professional) and there are not enough hours in a day to spend the
    >>time post-processing photos. If I have to do this, it means that I
    >>have to cut my sleep, or let the grass in my yard grows. (This is
    >>another reason that I keep having a nagging question about the digital
    >>camera which has better processing engine than the others, so that it
    >>can give me the better quality and rich colour photos without spending
    >>extra time to play around with in teh computer).
    >>Thanks for info

    >
    > Have you tried simply applying a curve correction to a raw file in
    > something like ufraw? It's not full blown hdr, but it can yield some
    > fairly impressive results - and it does not take very long - a metter of a
    > few seconds.


    And it's possible to upload custom curves for in-camera jpeg processing
    with Nikon cameras if you buy their additional software.

    --
    Paul Furman Photography
    http://edgehill.net
    Bay Natives Nursery
    http://www.baynatives.com
    Paul Furman, Sep 12, 2007
    #11
  12. Paul Furman Guest

    Paul Furman wrote:

    > Personally, I would find a clean fast ISO 6400 very useful


    Check out the ISO 6400 sample here:
    <http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/digitalcamera/slr/d3/sample.htm>
    Paul Furman, Sep 12, 2007
    #12
  13. gowanoh Guest

    I think what the original post is about is why camera manufacturers are not
    doing more to increase the pretty lame exposure latitude of current digital
    sensors.
    It is not clear that the new D3 sensor has any greater latitude or is
    accomplishing its rumored ISO feats with improved data processing.
    RAW formats allow, with much post exposure manipulation, the creation of
    images with a greater apparent than real increase in latitude. You are
    really bringing up the underexposed areas and trying to hide the noise. You
    can do nothing with overexposed areas because of the limited exposure
    latitude of digital sensors to over-exposure, which has been reported to be
    as little as 1/10th of a stop. Sekonic uses that figure to try to sell
    exposure meters so who knows if it is true or not. However it is obvious
    from experience that current dSLRs have very, very limited latitude to
    over-exposure.
    Current in camera jpeg processing algorithms truncate image data to 8 bits
    which in addition to limiting color gamut also limits exposure latitude even
    further.
    There have been a few announced patent filings that relate to this issue,
    including the Kodak modification of the Beyer filter which, if it works,
    would probably benefit low end more than high end sensors.
    gowanoh, Sep 13, 2007
    #13
  14. bugbear Guest

    gowanoh wrote:
    > I think what the original post is about is why camera manufacturers are not
    > doing more to increase the pretty lame exposure latitude of current digital
    > sensors.
    > It is not clear that the new D3 sensor has any greater latitude or is
    > accomplishing its rumored ISO feats with improved data processing.
    > RAW formats allow, with much post exposure manipulation, the creation of
    > images with a greater apparent than real increase in latitude. You are
    > really bringing up the underexposed areas and trying to hide the noise. You
    > can do nothing with overexposed areas because of the limited exposure
    > latitude of digital sensors to over-exposure, which has been reported to be
    > as little as 1/10th of a stop.


    That's most interesting; doing "full range" HDR involves
    multiple bracketing shots, which may bring the aggregate
    time to take the shot unacceptably high.

    But taking an extra frame to ensure that highlights aren't
    overexposed can, indeed must, be done with a shorter
    exposure than the "main" frame.

    Perhaps a single "bracket" shot, at +2 EV,
    whilst not bringing true "HDR" (*), might
    go a long way to prevent highlight-burn, after
    suitable HDR-like processing?

    BugBear

    (*) of course some people don't like HDR,
    or more particularly strangely tone-mapped
    HDR's anyway.
    bugbear, Sep 13, 2007
    #14
  15. Somebody Guest

    "gowanoh" <> wrote in message
    news:ue_Fi.6997$...
    >I think what the original post is about is why camera manufacturers are not
    >doing more to increase the pretty lame exposure latitude of current digital
    >sensors.
    > It is not clear that the new D3 sensor has any greater latitude or is
    > accomplishing its rumored ISO feats with improved data processing.
    > RAW formats allow, with much post exposure manipulation, the creation of
    > images with a greater apparent than real increase in latitude. You are
    > really bringing up the underexposed areas and trying to hide the noise.
    > You can do nothing with overexposed areas because of the limited exposure
    > latitude of digital sensors to over-exposure, which has been reported to
    > be as little as 1/10th of a stop. Sekonic uses that figure to try to sell
    > exposure meters so who knows if it is true or not. However it is obvious
    > from experience that current dSLRs have very, very limited latitude to
    > over-exposure.
    > Current in camera jpeg processing algorithms truncate image data to 8 bits
    > which in addition to limiting color gamut also limits exposure latitude
    > even further.
    > There have been a few announced patent filings that relate to this issue,
    > including the Kodak modification of the Beyer filter which, if it works,
    > would probably benefit low end more than high end sensors.
    >
    >


    They have or at least Fuji has. However at best the S3 and S5 are a nitch
    market. I think the current sensor technology has given about all it can in
    exposure range, noise and resolution. Sure companies are going to keep
    milking it for ever buck they can get, but I think 10MP is about the limit
    for the current sensors (if you want something tangible in return). If you
    just want bragging rights then they should be able to push these to 50 or
    60MP in a 2 oz compact point and shoot. Just don't expect much in picture
    quality.

    They might be able to push the current sensors more if they put in more
    powerful processors and more memory for the camera to work on the images
    with. Then something like in camera Noise Ninja would be possible and this
    would let you get a little more out of the current technology without giving
    up a whole lot in final image quality.

    Personally however I don't think that the sensor technology is the only
    thing that is about at its useful limit. I think the whole concept film
    camera with digital filling has went about as far as it can go as well. We
    really need to start looking at ways of doing away with the shutter, lenses,
    etc. All of this type of stuff should be on the sensor. This would give you
    a very powerful camera in a very small package. But, this won't happen
    anytime soon either. Greedy companies like milking outdated technology for
    every penny they can get. That is why most cars sold in the world still use
    gas even though that technology like current camera technology (the basics
    of it) are almost 100 years old and over 100 years old. Got to milk that cow
    until dust comes out.

    Somebody!
    Somebody, Sep 13, 2007
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. gazza

    Minolta's "special feature" on DSLR

    gazza, Apr 12, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    366
    gazza
    Apr 14, 2004
  2. Bracketing feature and HDR

    , May 16, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,371
  3. Replies:
    15
    Views:
    661
  4. Replies:
    48
    Views:
    1,044
    John Turco
    Nov 18, 2007
  5. Liam O'Connor
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    103
    Liam O'Connor
    May 13, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page