histogram logarithm

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by drs@canby.com, Dec 6, 2004.

  1. Guest

    I am new to reading digital photo histograms. I've been told that the
    horizontal scale of luminosity is logarithmic. That the histogram is
    divided into 8 segments (not visually differentiated) of equal width.
    The first segment at the right side contains twice the information as
    the next segment, and that segment contains twice the info as its
    neighbor to the left, and so on. Meaning that the distribution image
    isn't quite what it might appear at first glance, its being on a
    logrithmic rather than linear scale. Apparently, the advantage of a
    log scale is that since the dark (left) end of the histogram
    represents images with far fewer photons, a linear scale histogram
    would be pretty thin on that end. Can anyone direct me to a better
    explanation of this? One that doesn't have a degree in physics as a
    prerequisite?
     
    , Dec 6, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I am new to reading digital photo histograms. I've been told that the
    > horizontal scale of luminosity is logarithmic.


    Right, just like film curves and all the other exposure scales you've seen.
    Equal distances correspond to equal numbers of f-stops.

    > That the histogram is
    > divided into 8 segments (not visually differentiated) of equal width.


    No. It is more or less continuous, or divided into hundreds of segments.

    The reason for the log scale is that we perceive light logarithmically. The
    shutter speeds on your camera are logarithmic (1/1000, 1/500, 1/250... not
    1/1000, 2/1000, 3/1000...). The f-stops on your camera lens produce
    logarithmically scaled intensities. One "stop" is a factor of 2, not an
    increment of 2.

    In short: Don't panic. Photographic measurements have been logarithmic all
    along. What you think of as "midtones" are halfway along a logarithmic
    scale, not halfway along a linear scale.

    If the histogram were not logarithmic, the highlights would take up far too
    much of it.
     
    Michael A. Covington, Dec 6, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ron Wong Guest

    Ron Wong, Dec 7, 2004
    #3
  4. Guest

    On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 23:03:40 -0800, (Ron
    Wong) wrote:

    >http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-histograms.shtml


    I've read that article and quite a few others. None mention the
    logarithmic distribution and from what I was recently told,
    understanding the difference between a log scale and a linear scale is
    very helpful in using histograms. He was saying that the histogram of
    a properly exposed black-and-white checkerboard (exactly same amount
    of blacks and whites) would not show a symmetrical curve. The curve
    would be weighted toward the dark end of the scale. A useful thing to
    know, apparently. Not that being unaware of that means a person can't
    use a histogram to improve exposure.
     
    , Dec 7, 2004
    #4
  5. On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 11:04:15 -0800, wrote:

    >reading digital photo histograms.


    The histogram that digital cameras show is not logarithmic nor linear.

    With current digital cameras the histogram shows the distribution of
    the linear captured data after the data has been a) automatically
    edited (finalized) by the firmware of the camera and b) compensated
    for CRT viewing. So, in short, with most if not all digital cameras
    the histogram is calculated from the camera finalized JPEG image. This
    unfortunately is so even if one is shooting in the linear RAW mode.

    In case the following three requirements are in effect:

    1) the camera outputs the image data in the sadRGB color space (not
    many do so even if the manufacturers may so indicate in the manual)

    2) the camera does behave colorimetricly, in other words it does not
    apply non-colorimetric "enhancements" (most if not all point&shoot
    cameras are non-colorimetric and some dSLRs are also).

    3) the coding system of the camera is such that it maps the captured
    data up to level 255 (most do so)

    then you can estimate your exposure value (EV) from the histogram
    using the following table:

    Histogram ends at 255 == EV 0
    Histogram ends at 230 == EV -0.33
    Histogram ends at 207 == EV -0.67
    Histogram ends at 186 == EV -1
    Histogram ends at 168 == EV -1.33
    Histogram ends at 151 == EV -1.67
    Histogram ends at 136 == EV -2
    Histogram ends at 122 == EV -2.33
    Histogram ends at 110 == EV -2.67
    Histogram ends at 99 == EV -3
    Histogram ends at 89 == EV -3.33
    Histogram ends at 80 == EV -3.67
    Histogram ends at 72 == EV -4

    So, e.g. if the histo of your photo ends at level 207 it means that
    you'd need to overexpose by +2/3 stops in order to capture hull
    histogram (in other words to utilize the capability of the camera in
    the best possible way).

    Most cameras do not apply the sadRGB transfer function so the
    following table that is calculated for gamma 1.72 space (native gamma
    space of Mac systems) will often give more accurate estimation:

    Histogram ends at 255 == EV 0
    Histogram ends at 223 == EV -0.33
    Histogram ends at 195 == EV -0.67
    Histogram ends at 170 == EV -1
    Histogram ends at 149 == EV -1.33
    Histogram ends at 130 == EV -1.67
    Histogram ends at 114 == EV -2
    Histogram ends at 100 == EV -2.33
    Histogram ends at 87 == EV -2.67
    Histogram ends at 76 == EV -3
    Histogram ends at 67 == EV -3.33
    Histogram ends at 58 == EV -3.67
    Histogram ends at 51 == EV -4

    Now, a totally another issue then is the way how you perceive the
    effect of the f/stops (aperture) when you look through the viewfinder
    and change the aperture setting of the lens (while keeping the DOF
    button pressed). In this situation the vision adapts (light
    adaptation, it behaves about logarithmicly) so the change of the
    aperture (that also has logarithmic scale) will be perceived as a
    change that is equal in "effect" or in "amount", stop after stop, so
    the perceived effect is about linear. That is the desired effect and
    infarct the very reason why the aperture scaling was chosen to be
    logarithmic.

    Timo Autiokari http://www.aim-dtp.net
     
    Timo Autiokari, Dec 7, 2004
    #5
  6. Guest

    On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 20:44:10 +0200, Timo Autiokari
    <> wrote:

    >On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 11:04:15 -0800, wrote:
    >
    >>reading digital photo histograms.

    >
    >The histogram that digital cameras show is not logarithmic nor linear.


    Thanks. I'm quickly out of my element. I'll keep reading.
     
    , Dec 7, 2004
    #6
  7. Guest

    Timo Autiokari wrote:

    > The histogram that digital cameras show is not logarithmic nor

    linear.

    ??? I take a picture with my 10D. I observe histogram. I say "it
    needs another stop". So I adjust the exposure to add 2x the light,
    take a new picture and look at the histogram. The whole thing shifts
    over one horizontal "bar" on the display, just as one would expect.

    So it seems fairly log-ish to me. And really, if the histogram didn't
    behave this way, the feature would be rather useless.
     
    , Dec 7, 2004
    #7

  8. > ??? I take a picture with my 10D. I observe histogram. I say "it
    > needs another stop". So I adjust the exposure to add 2x the light,
    > take a new picture and look at the histogram. The whole thing shifts
    > over one horizontal "bar" on the display, just as one would expect.
    >
    > So it seems fairly log-ish to me. And really, if the histogram didn't
    > behave this way, the feature would be rather useless.


    Linear would be next to useless. My camera works the same way. Many log
    graphs are powers of ten but digital camera histograms (the horizontal axes)
    are powers of two.
     
    Charles Schuler, Dec 7, 2004
    #8
  9. wrote:

    >So it seems fairly log-ish to me. And really, if the histogram didn't
    >behave this way, the feature would be rather useless.


    Well, it does not behave like that. The 4 vertical bars in the 10D
    histogram are not f/stops, if they were the 10D would only have a 5
    f/stop dynamic range. But is has about 8 stops of dynamic range.

    You can easily test this, with the camera in manual, take macrophotos
    of white evenly illuminated paper (set the lens un-focussed so paper
    surface will be optically blurred) at dfferent exposures by 1/3 f/stop
    stepping. The histo will show a nice peak for each shot and you can
    verify how the EV adjustment affect to the data (how the peak is moved
    as the function of EV).

    The histogram is calculated as I explained earlier. For the 10D and
    other dcameras that have equally spaced 4 vertical divisor bars in the
    histogram display one of the following tables will give a decent
    approximation (the bars are counted from right to left):

    Assuming gamma 1.72 space, if the histogram ends:
    at the location of Whitepoint: EV = 0
    in the middle of Whitepoint and 1st bar: EV = -0.26
    at the location of 1st bar: EV = -0.55
    in the middle of 1st bar and 2nd bar: EV = -0.89
    at the location of 2nd bar: EV = -1.27
    in the middle of 2nd bar and 3rd bar: EV = -1.72
    at the location of 3rd bar: EV = -2.27
    in the middle of 3rd bar and 4th bar: EV = -2.99
    at the location of 4th bar: EV = -3.99
    in the middle of 4th bar and Blackpoint: EV = -5.71

    Assuming gamma 2 space, if the histogram ends:
    at the location of Whitepoint: EV = 0
    in the middle of Whitepoint and 1st bar: EV = -0.3
    at the location of 1st bar: EV = -0.64
    in the middle of 1st bar and 2nd bar: EV = -1.03
    at the location of 2nd bar: EV = -1.47
    in the middle of 2nd bar and 3rd bar: EV = -2
    at the location of 3rd bar: EV = -2.64
    in the middle of 3rd bar and 4th bar: EV = -3.47
    at the location of 4th bar: EV = -4.64
    in the middle of 4th bar and Blackpoint: EV = -6.64

    Assuming gamma 2.2 space, if the histogram ends:
    at the location of Whitepoint: EV = 0
    in the middle of Whitepoint and 1st bar: EV = -0.33
    at the location of 1st bar: EV = -0.71
    in the middle of 1st bar and 2nd bar: EV = -1.13
    at the location of 2nd bar: EV = -1.62
    in the middle of 2nd bar and 3rd bar: EV = -2.2
    at the location of 3rd bar: EV = -2.91
    in the middle of 3rd bar and 4th bar: EV = -3.82
    at the location of 4th bar: EV = -5.11
    in the middle of 4th bar and Blackpoint: EV = -7.31

    Timo Autiokari http://www.aim-dtp.net
     
    Timo Autiokari, Dec 8, 2004
    #9
  10. "Timo Autiokari" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > wrote:
    >
    > >So it seems fairly log-ish to me. And really, if the histogram didn't
    > >behave this way, the feature would be rather useless.

    >
    > Well, it does not behave like that. The 4 vertical bars in the 10D
    > histogram are not f/stops, if they were the 10D would only have a 5
    > f/stop dynamic range. But is has about 8 stops of dynamic range.
    >
    > You can easily test this, with the camera in manual, take macrophotos
    > of white evenly illuminated paper (set the lens un-focussed so paper
    > surface will be optically blurred) at dfferent exposures by 1/3 f/stop
    > stepping. The histo will show a nice peak for each shot and you can
    > verify how the EV adjustment affect to the data (how the peak is moved
    > as the function of EV).
    >
    > The histogram is calculated as I explained earlier. For the 10D and
    > other dcameras that have equally spaced 4 vertical divisor bars in the
    > histogram display one of the following tables will give a decent
    > approximation (the bars are counted from right to left):
    >
    > Assuming gamma 1.72 space, if the histogram ends:
    > at the location of Whitepoint: EV = 0
    > in the middle of Whitepoint and 1st bar: EV = -0.26
    > at the location of 1st bar: EV = -0.55
    > in the middle of 1st bar and 2nd bar: EV = -0.89
    > at the location of 2nd bar: EV = -1.27
    > in the middle of 2nd bar and 3rd bar: EV = -1.72
    > at the location of 3rd bar: EV = -2.27
    > in the middle of 3rd bar and 4th bar: EV = -2.99
    > at the location of 4th bar: EV = -3.99
    > in the middle of 4th bar and Blackpoint: EV = -5.71
    >
    > Assuming gamma 2 space, if the histogram ends:
    > at the location of Whitepoint: EV = 0
    > in the middle of Whitepoint and 1st bar: EV = -0.3
    > at the location of 1st bar: EV = -0.64
    > in the middle of 1st bar and 2nd bar: EV = -1.03
    > at the location of 2nd bar: EV = -1.47
    > in the middle of 2nd bar and 3rd bar: EV = -2
    > at the location of 3rd bar: EV = -2.64
    > in the middle of 3rd bar and 4th bar: EV = -3.47
    > at the location of 4th bar: EV = -4.64
    > in the middle of 4th bar and Blackpoint: EV = -6.64
    >
    > Assuming gamma 2.2 space, if the histogram ends:
    > at the location of Whitepoint: EV = 0
    > in the middle of Whitepoint and 1st bar: EV = -0.33
    > at the location of 1st bar: EV = -0.71
    > in the middle of 1st bar and 2nd bar: EV = -1.13
    > at the location of 2nd bar: EV = -1.62
    > in the middle of 2nd bar and 3rd bar: EV = -2.2
    > at the location of 3rd bar: EV = -2.91
    > in the middle of 3rd bar and 4th bar: EV = -3.82
    > at the location of 4th bar: EV = -5.11
    > in the middle of 4th bar and Blackpoint: EV = -7.31
    >
    > Timo Autiokari http://www.aim-dtp.net


    Greetings Timo,
    you seem to be an expert on the histogram.
    I've never used mine in the field. I have a Pentex spot meter that I use
    for evaluating highlights and shadows. Perhaps I no longer need the spot
    meter. Do you use the histogram much in the field? I would like to learn
    more on how to use it.
    -tom
     
    Tom Nakashima, Dec 8, 2004
    #10
  11. Guest

    Timo Autiokari wrote:

    >>So it seems fairly log-ish to me. And really, if the histogram

    didn't
    >>behave this way, the feature would be rather useless.

    >
    > Well, it does not behave like that.


    ???

    It does behave like I described. If it didn't, I wouldn't even bother
    with the thing, as it takes a fair bit of time to call it up.
     
    , Dec 8, 2004
    #11
  12. Paul H. Guest

    "Michael A. Covington" <> wrote
    in message news:41b4e82b$...
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >I am new to reading digital photo histograms. I've been told that the
    > > horizontal scale of luminosity is logarithmic.

    >
    > Right, just like film curves and all the other exposure scales you've

    seen.
    > Equal distances correspond to equal numbers of f-stops.
    >
    > > That the histogram is
    > > divided into 8 segments (not visually differentiated) of equal width.

    >
    > No. It is more or less continuous, or divided into hundreds of segments.
    >
    > The reason for the log scale is that we perceive light logarithmically.

    The
    > shutter speeds on your camera are logarithmic (1/1000, 1/500, 1/250... not
    > 1/1000, 2/1000, 3/1000...). The f-stops on your camera lens produce
    > logarithmically scaled intensities. One "stop" is a factor of 2, not an
    > increment of 2.
    >
    > In short: Don't panic. Photographic measurements have been logarithmic

    all
    > along. What you think of as "midtones" are halfway along a logarithmic
    > scale, not halfway along a linear scale.
    >
    > If the histogram were not logarithmic, the highlights would take up far

    too
    > much of it.



    First off, I like to thank all of those who refrained from calling me an
    idiot for a previous post-- my delicate ego can't take too many more shocks.
    Secondly...

    I trained my camera on an indoor scene under constant illumination and took
    twelve manually-focussed exposures at f5.6 with shutter speeds ranging from
    1/25s to 1/2s in roughtly 1/3EV increments. Next, I made twelve histograms
    and recorded the numbers for the peak luminance readings over the specified
    exposure range, obtaining a data set which I normalized to 8 bits, i.e., the
    values range from 0 to 255, corresponding to the bins of the camera
    histogram. So what did I find? Clearly, the position for peak luminance
    varied linearly as the natural logarithms of the exposure readings. Here's
    the data

    Shutters speeds: 1/25, 1/20, 1/15, 1/13, 1/10, 1/8, 1/6, 1/5, 1/4, 1/3,
    1/2.5, 1/2
    Measured corresponding peak luminance bin numbers: 39, 52, 66, 80, 104,
    123, 143, 170, 187, 204, 228, 244

    Data were plotted using my ancient version of Mathcad.

    It was a pain in the neck to measure the position of the peak luminance
    values in Photoshop, but hey, science requires sacrifice.

    So there you go, I guess.
     
    Paul H., Dec 9, 2004
    #12
  13. Thanks for the data. It's reassuring to know that the histograms we
    actually see are plotted the way the traditions of photographic theory led
    me to expect.

    "Paul H." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Michael A. Covington" <>
    > wrote
    > in message news:41b4e82b$...
    >>
    >> <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> >I am new to reading digital photo histograms. I've been told that the
    >> > horizontal scale of luminosity is logarithmic.

    >>
    >> Right, just like film curves and all the other exposure scales you've

    > seen.
    >> Equal distances correspond to equal numbers of f-stops.
    >>
    >> > That the histogram is
    >> > divided into 8 segments (not visually differentiated) of equal width.

    >>
    >> No. It is more or less continuous, or divided into hundreds of segments.
    >>
    >> The reason for the log scale is that we perceive light logarithmically.

    > The
    >> shutter speeds on your camera are logarithmic (1/1000, 1/500, 1/250...
    >> not
    >> 1/1000, 2/1000, 3/1000...). The f-stops on your camera lens produce
    >> logarithmically scaled intensities. One "stop" is a factor of 2, not an
    >> increment of 2.
    >>
    >> In short: Don't panic. Photographic measurements have been logarithmic

    > all
    >> along. What you think of as "midtones" are halfway along a logarithmic
    >> scale, not halfway along a linear scale.
    >>
    >> If the histogram were not logarithmic, the highlights would take up far

    > too
    >> much of it.

    >
    >
    > First off, I like to thank all of those who refrained from calling me an
    > idiot for a previous post-- my delicate ego can't take too many more
    > shocks.
    > Secondly...
    >
    > I trained my camera on an indoor scene under constant illumination and
    > took
    > twelve manually-focussed exposures at f5.6 with shutter speeds ranging
    > from
    > 1/25s to 1/2s in roughtly 1/3EV increments. Next, I made twelve
    > histograms
    > and recorded the numbers for the peak luminance readings over the
    > specified
    > exposure range, obtaining a data set which I normalized to 8 bits, i.e.,
    > the
    > values range from 0 to 255, corresponding to the bins of the camera
    > histogram. So what did I find? Clearly, the position for peak
    > luminance
    > varied linearly as the natural logarithms of the exposure readings.
    > Here's
    > the data
    >
    > Shutters speeds: 1/25, 1/20, 1/15, 1/13, 1/10, 1/8, 1/6, 1/5, 1/4, 1/3,
    > 1/2.5, 1/2
    > Measured corresponding peak luminance bin numbers: 39, 52, 66, 80, 104,
    > 123, 143, 170, 187, 204, 228, 244
    >
    > Data were plotted using my ancient version of Mathcad.
    >
    > It was a pain in the neck to measure the position of the peak luminance
    > values in Photoshop, but hey, science requires sacrifice.
    >
    > So there you go, I guess.
    >
    >
     
    Michael A. Covington, Dec 9, 2004
    #13
  14. Guest

    Tom Nakashima wrote:
    > I've never used mine in the field. I have a Pentex spot meter that I

    use
    > for evaluating highlights and shadows. Perhaps I no longer need the

    spot
    > meter. Do you use the histogram much in the field?


    I do not carry a spot meter at all! I have the D60 and am using both
    the histogram and the overexposure warning (blinking pixels on the LCD
    view) to evaluate the exposure level. These both tools are not very
    accurate, e.g. the pixel blinking only happens when all the three color
    components of a pixel result 255,255,255 in the JPEG version, the
    histogram is binned according to some weighted average of the R, G and
    B values of the pixels of the JPEG version, and the histogram is
    neither lin log or log scaled so it is difficult to see what amount of
    EV correction is needed.

    The biggest problem of all however is that both the blinking and the
    histogram are taken from the camera finalized JPEG. I only shoot RAW
    and I convert to linear PSD. The automatic editing algorithms that the
    camera use to create the JPEG version clips the data somewhat so even
    if the histogram shows clipping and there are pixels blinking on the
    LCD view, even then the raw data still can be underexposed.

    Anyhow these tools are useful once one is familiar with the above
    mentioned faults. I measure using the evaluative or center-weighted
    average metering modes of the camera and then I use the histogram and
    pixel blinking to assess the exposure level.

    Spot metering is very important with chrome, especially when the chomes
    are to be projected on the whitescreen. In this situation one is
    totally at the mercy of the tonal reproduction curve of the chrome, one
    simply must expose the main subject well/correctly so that it will then
    also reproduce correctly. The drawback is that there can often be
    obtrusive strong clipping at the bright end.

    In my opinion, with digital imaging (and when chrome is scanned) it is
    not a good approach to force the main subject to some hypothetical
    optimal level using exposure adjustment. There is no fixed tonal
    reproduction curve that needs to be taken into account, and forcing the
    exposure according to the main subject will usually cause the clipping
    at the bright end (or can cause un-necessary underexposure that
    increase the noise and cause clipping at the dark end).

    With digital workflow it is much better to expose so that nothing is
    clipped at the bright end (less of course e.g. direct and speculars
    rays from light sources that almost always need to be clipped) and then
    in the post-process adjust the tonality (e.g. using Curves) so that the
    main subject is reproduced well.

    So this is called as the "expose to the right" -method. I always try to
    expose for full histogram without major clipping. That way the small
    dynamic range of the camera is taken fully into use, noise is minimized
    and the most important part of the dynamic range of the scene is
    captured. In the post-process I then have the best possible starting
    point for editing the image in case the main subject needs to be
    presented differently than how it was recorded, or in case the scene
    had very large dynamic range etc.

    Timo Autiokari
     
    , Dec 9, 2004
    #14
  15. Guest

    Paul H. wrote:
    >Clearly, the position for peak luminance varied linearly as the

    natural
    >logarithms of the exposure readings.


    Interesting results! So from your data what amount of RGB levels
    equals one f/stop?

    I also did an evaluation, very cood topic, I now have much better grip
    on the histogram of my Canon D60. I took 22 exposures of a Q-60 color
    input target, stepping each exposure by 1/3 f/stop. I started from an
    obvious overexposure in order to see how the histogram show that
    situation. I do not discuss the form of the histogram as the most
    important information that the histogram gives is the exposure and it
    is the location where the histogram end on the right that shows this
    information.

    Like it is with most dSLRs the D60 histogram is divided into 5 equal
    sized segments by vertical lines. I have named these as segments 5, 4,
    3, 2 and 1. So the segment 1 is the _rightmost_ segment. I do not list
    the RGB values since at the picture taking time these are not
    available, the only things that are available there are the histogram
    and the blinking pixels on the Camera LCD. I have tried to characterize
    the appearance of the histogram as accurately as possible.

    Results:

    +1 1/3 EV: the histogram draws a thint vertical white line on right
    edge of the histogram all the way from the bottom to the top. Both the
    PEG and RAW data are severely overexposed.

    +1 EV: the histogram draws a vertical white line on right edge of the
    histogram all the way from bottom to the top. Both the PEG and RAW data
    are severely overexposed.

    +2/3 EV: the histogram draws a vertical white line on right edge of the
    histogram all the way from bottom to the top. JPEG data is severely
    overexposed, RAW data is clipped somewhat but quite usable.

    +1/3 EV: the histogram draws a vertical white line on right edge of the
    histogram about, 80% of full height. Plenty of color patches (of the
    target) are still blinking fully. JPEG data is severely overexposed,
    RAW data is fully usable, only a little clipped.

    0 EV: The histogram ends just about at 255, there is one empty pixel in
    the histogram on the right, (and no vertical white line on right edge).
    Blinking pixels on the most light patches. Jpeg data is clipped
    according to the blinking, RAW data is about correctly exposed.

    -1/3 EV: Both the histogram and the blinking appear *very* much the
    same (verified by a loupe) as in the previous 0 EV shot (still the same
    single pixel on the right is empty on the histogram). Jpeg data is
    clipped according to the blinking pixels, RAW data is -1/3 EV
    underexposed. And I really did not mess up with the manual controls nor
    did the illumination level change, the illumination was from DC 12V
    driven Tungsten lamp with dichroic filter for daylight simulation in
    anothervice a totally dark room.

    -2/3 EV: Histo ends at about 80% of the segment 1 filled. No blinking
    pixels anymore, no clipping on JPEG data either.

    -1 EV: Histo ends at about 60% of the segment 1 filled.

    -1 1/3 EV: Histo ends at about 20% of the segment 1 filled.

    -1 2/3 EV: Histo ends at about 80% of the segment 2 filled.

    -2 EV: Histo ends at about 40% of the segment 2 filled.

    -2 1/3 EV: Histo ends at about 30% of the segment 2 filled.

    -2 2/3 EV: Histo fills the segments 5,4 and 3 fully. (So the two
    leftmost segments are empty).

    Not consistent behavioud in any way. So my new general rules for
    evaluation of the histogram are:
    1) is overexposed in case there is the faint white line, of any height,
    at the right edge of the histogram.
    2) is underexposed if more than 20% of the segment 1 is empty.

    Extremely difficult tool for accurate control/evaluation, when 50% of
    the segment 1 is empty the image data is already underexposed over 1
    f/stop.

    Linear histogram would be perfect (in other words, taken directly from
    the raw data). This would allow very accurate evaluation of the
    exposure: When such histogram is half full the exposure was -1EV, so
    there is ample of room for accurate adjustment and by a quick glance
    one could immediately see if the exposure is good. The way the
    histogram is now presented maps the topmost 1 f/stop to a very very
    narrow range at the right edge of the histogram, on the tiny LCD of the
    cameras there are only very small number of pixels representing the top
    1 f/stop. One f/stop underexposure is _quite_ bad with the digicams due
    to their small dynamic range and due to the highly increased noise
    level in the finalized image.

    Now, there are many ways the feedback could be improved (in addition to
    the histogram and blinking pixels):

    1) Option of linear x-axis. This gives much better resolution to where
    it is really needed.

    2) Option for logarithmic y-axis. The form of the histogram is not at
    all important, what is important is where it ends at the right.

    3) In case of underexposure show the amount of the underexposure in EV,
    with a user settable warning level, if exeeded emits a beep. And in
    case of overexposure show the amount of pixels that are overexposed
    e.g. in per mille, with a user settable warning level, if exeeded emits
    another kind of a beep.

    Timo Autiokari
     
    , Dec 11, 2004
    #15
  16. Guest

    In message <>,
    wrote:

    >I am new to reading digital photo histograms. I've been told that the
    >horizontal scale of luminosity is logarithmic. That the histogram is
    >divided into 8 segments (not visually differentiated) of equal width.
    >The first segment at the right side contains twice the information as
    >the next segment, and that segment contains twice the info as its
    >neighbor to the left, and so on. Meaning that the distribution image
    >isn't quite what it might appear at first glance, its being on a
    >logrithmic rather than linear scale. Apparently, the advantage of a
    >log scale is that since the dark (left) end of the histogram
    >represents images with far fewer photons, a linear scale histogram
    >would be pretty thin on that end. Can anyone direct me to a better
    >explanation of this? One that doesn't have a degree in physics as a
    >prerequisite?


    It isn't exactly logarithmic; logarithmic would be where the actual
    intensity of the light were proportional to a fixed, constant number
    raised to a variable power. The way image histograms work is that a
    variable base is rasied to a fixed power.

    In other words, where x is the position in the histogram, and the
    histogram goes from 0 to 255, the range of intensities represented are
    0^2.2 to 255^2.2. This is called "gamma-adjusted" data. The midpoint
    (50% intensity) is somewhere around 186 out of 255.

    A logarithmic range would be 2.2^0 to 2.2^255, and the midpoint (50%
    intensity) would be about 254! 0 intensity would be negative infinity,
    and all intensities below 1 would be negative values.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Dec 23, 2004
    #16
  17. Guest

    In message <>,
    wrote:

    >Timo Autiokari wrote:
    >
    >> The histogram that digital cameras show is not logarithmic nor

    >linear.
    >
    >??? I take a picture with my 10D. I observe histogram. I say "it
    >needs another stop". So I adjust the exposure to add 2x the light,
    >take a new picture and look at the histogram. The whole thing shifts
    >over one horizontal "bar" on the display, just as one would expect.
    >
    >So it seems fairly log-ish to me. And really, if the histogram didn't
    >behave this way, the feature would be rather useless.


    It looks "log-ish" towards the right. It is not log-ish at all at the
    black end. In fact, zero intensity would be at an infinite distance to
    the left.

    y=k^x - this is logarithmic

    y=x^k - this is how gamma adjusted numbers work

    A logarithmic value of zero always represents 1, as any number raised to
    the zero power is one. The negative numbers represent the space between
    linear 1 and linear infinitessimal values. Luminance starts at zero,
    not at one.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Dec 23, 2004
    #17
  18. Guest

    In message <>,
    wrote:

    >So this is called as the "expose to the right" -method. I always try to
    >expose for full histogram without major clipping. That way the small
    >dynamic range of the camera is taken fully into use, noise is minimized
    >and the most important part of the dynamic range of the scene is
    >captured. In the post-process I then have the best possible starting
    >point for editing the image in case the main subject needs to be
    >presented differently than how it was recorded, or in case the scene
    >had very large dynamic range etc.


    But alas, after every exposure the camera has all the information it
    needs to tell you how you could optimize the exposure. Imagine if the
    camera would report something like this to you, after the shot:

    ---------------------------------

    % Clipped - R 0% G 8% B 0%

    ---------------------------------

    REMAINING RAW HEADROOM (IN STOPS)

    % Clipping Red Green Blue

    0% 1.1 0 0.1
    1% 1.2 0 0.3
    2% 1.4 0 0.5
    5% 1.7 0 0.8
    10% 2.1 0.3 0.9

    If it wasn't an action shot with changing lighting, and you could do it
    again, you could perfect it ( or choose a suitable level of compromise).
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Dec 23, 2004
    #18
  19. Frank ess Guest

    wrote:
    > In message <>,
    > wrote:
    >
    >> So this is called as the "expose to the right" -method. I always try
    >> to expose for full histogram without major clipping. That way the
    >> small dynamic range of the camera is taken fully into use, noise is
    >> minimized and the most important part of the dynamic range of the
    >> scene is captured. In the post-process I then have the best possible
    >> starting point for editing the image in case the main subject needs
    >> to be presented differently than how it was recorded, or in case the
    >> scene had very large dynamic range etc.

    >
    > But alas, after every exposure the camera has all the information it
    > needs to tell you how you could optimize the exposure. Imagine if the
    > camera would report something like this to you, after the shot:
    >
    > ---------------------------------
    >
    > % Clipped - R 0% G 8% B 0%
    >
    > ---------------------------------
    >
    > REMAINING RAW HEADROOM (IN STOPS)
    >
    > % Clipping Red Green Blue
    >
    > 0% 1.1 0 0.1
    > 1% 1.2 0 0.3
    > 2% 1.4 0 0.5
    > 5% 1.7 0 0.8
    > 10% 2.1 0.3 0.9
    >
    > If it wasn't an action shot with changing lighting, and you could do
    > it again, you could perfect it ( or choose a suitable level of
    > compromise).
    >


    Wouldn't it be able to do the evaluation near-instantaneously and apply
    the result to a second shot (if not a first) in milliseconds?


    --
    Frank ess
     
    Frank ess, Dec 24, 2004
    #19
  20. "Frank ess" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > wrote:

    SNIP
    >> If it wasn't an action shot with changing lighting, and you could
    >> do it again, you could perfect it ( or choose a suitable level of
    >> compromise).
    >>

    >
    > Wouldn't it be able to do the evaluation near-instantaneously and
    > apply the result to a second shot (if not a first) in milliseconds?


    As a belated reaction, theoretically it could do this rather fast
    (depends on image size and processor speed), especially when
    implemented in an ASIC. However the results could drasticly reduce the
    useful dynamic range. This could be caused by a single catchlight.
    There is nothing wrong with clipping catchlights, because it allows
    for better exposure in the shadows.
    Of course one can apply some sort of heuristic to deal with the
    exclusion of catchlights, but it would add to the time between shots.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Jan 4, 2005
    #20
    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. VT

    Histogram

    VT, Jul 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    632
    Paul H.
    Jul 18, 2003
  2. neo

    correcting weak histogram information?

    neo, Jul 28, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    413
    Bart van der Wolf
    Jul 28, 2003
  3. Frank

    Histogram - what does it show?

    Frank, Sep 7, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    466
    Frank
    Sep 7, 2003
  4. Mike Graham

    Histogram question

    Mike Graham, Sep 29, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    558
    Don Stauffer
    Sep 30, 2003
  5. Martin Sørensen

    D80 histogram vs histogram on computer

    Martin Sørensen, Dec 16, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    2,031
Loading...

Share This Page