How Does Auto White Balance Work?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by jim evans, Feb 26, 2004.

  1. jim evans

    jim evans Guest

    I've mad three attempts at Google-searching for a good explanation of
    how auto white balance works, and how to tell which method a given
    camera uses.

    My feeble understanding gives two ways it works.

    Method 1 -- The age old method Kodak developed for mass color
    printing. The entire image is mixed together (like in a blender). The
    result is assumed to be neutral gray. This result is then used to
    color balance the entire image..

    dpreview's definition seems to say this is *THE* way it works.

    http://www.dpreview.com/...
    ..../Glossary/Digital_Imaging/White_Balance_01.htm

    "Most digital cameras feature automatic white balance, this means that
    the camera looks at the overall colour of the image and calculates the
    best-fit white balance, however these systems are often fooled
    (especially if taking a photograph dominated by one colour, say
    green)."

    Method 2 - The algorithm searches the image for the lightest area and
    assumes this is white. This area is then used to color balance the
    entire image.

    I'm under the impression method 2 is more common in prosumer and
    DSLRs.

    I don't know how to tell which is being used by a given camera.

    I assume there may be other methods, but these two are the only ones
    I'm aware of.

    Does anybody know where there's a good explanation of auto white
    balancing they can point me to?

    jim
     
    jim evans, Feb 26, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. jim evans

    Lucas Tam Guest

    jim evans <> wrote in
    news::

    > I've mad three attempts at Google-searching for a good explanation of
    > how auto white balance works, and how to tell which method a given
    > camera uses.


    Each camera probably has it's own propreitary algorithm

    --
    Lucas Tam ()
    Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
    http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
     
    Lucas Tam, Feb 26, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jim evans

    jim evans Guest

    On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 16:54:12 GMT, Lucas Tam <>
    wrote:

    >jim evans <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> I've mad three attempts at Google-searching for a good explanation of
    >> how auto white balance works, and how to tell which method a given
    >> camera uses.

    >
    >Each camera probably has it's own propreitary algorithm


    It seems unlikely there are as many approaches to white balancing as
    there are cameras.

    jim
     
    jim evans, Feb 26, 2004
    #3
  4. jim evans

    Lucas Tam Guest

    jim evans <> wrote in
    news::

    >>Each camera probably has it's own propreitary algorithm

    >
    > It seems unlikely there are as many approaches to white balancing as
    > there are cameras.


    No, but who knows what's in the firmware except for the programmer(s).

    You maybe able to find some information for Pro grade SLRs, but I doubt for
    consumer grade cameras.

    --
    Lucas Tam ()
    Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
    http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
     
    Lucas Tam, Feb 26, 2004
    #4
  5. "jim evans" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Most digital cameras feature automatic white balance, this means that
    > the camera looks at the overall colour of the image and calculates the
    > best-fit white balance, however these systems are often fooled
    > (especially if taking a photograph dominated by one colour, say
    > green)."
    >
    > Method 2 - The algorithm searches the image for the lightest area and
    > assumes this is white. This area is then used to color balance the
    > entire image.
    >
    > I'm under the impression method 2 is more common in prosumer and
    > DSLRs.
    >
    > I don't know how to tell which is being used by a given camera.
    >
    > I assume there may be other methods, but these two are the only ones
    > I'm aware of.
    >
    > Does anybody know where there's a good explanation of auto white
    > balancing they can point me to?





    It's WAY more complicated than this. In fact, fooling the cameras these
    days with different kinds of lights and different colors doesn't happen.
    The camera firmware is significantly smarter about this (at least the Kodak
    ones)



    It's also proprietary, so I can't tell you.
     
    William Jackson, Feb 26, 2004
    #5
  6. jim evans

    Paul H. Guest

    "jim evans" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I've mad three attempts at Google-searching for a good explanation of
    > how auto white balance works, and how to tell which method a given
    > camera uses.


    <snip>

    I would assume the camera's software computes the average red, green, and
    blue pixel values, then using the assumption that the entire scene should
    average out to grey-ish at the recorded luminance level, the software would
    determine the color bias and subtract the latter from each (R,G,B) triple
    comprising the photo.

    If I were a camera, that's the kind of camera I would be, anyway.

    Funny, I just did a Google search using the arcane and cryptic search phrase
    "white balance explained" (include quotes) and came up with a ton of hits
    including

    http://www.3dvelocity.com/reviews/4800/fujirev-4.htm

    which contains an explanation agreeing with my very own pre-search
    hypothesis/conjecture. Damn, but I'm one clever little monkey, ain't I? And
    I smell good, too! That's why ZZ Top sang "every girl crazy 'bout a
    sharp-brained man!" Uh-huh.
     
    Paul H., Feb 29, 2004
    #6
  7. jim evans

    jim evans Guest

    On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:56:36 -0800, "Paul H."
    <> wrote:

    >>I've mad three attempts at Google-searching for a good explanation of
    >>how auto white balance works, and how to tell which method a given
    >>camera uses.
    >>
    >>My feeble understanding gives two ways it works.
    >>
    >>Method 1 -- The age old method Kodak developed for mass color
    >>printing. The entire image is mixed together (like in a blender). The
    >>result is assumed to be neutral gray. This result is then used to
    >>color balance the entire image..
    >>
    >>Method 2 - The algorithm searches the image for the lightest area and
    >>assumes this is white. This area is then used to color balance the
    >>entire image.
    >>
    >>I'm under the impression method 2 is more common in prosumer and
    >>DSLRs.
    >>
    >>I assume there may be other methods, but these two are the only ones
    >>I'm aware of.
    >>
    >>Does anybody know where there's a good explanation of auto white
    >>balancing they can point me to?

    >
    >I would assume the camera's software computes the average red, green, and
    >blue pixel values, then using the assumption that the entire scene should
    >average out to grey-ish at the recorded luminance level, the software would
    >determine the color bias and subtract the latter from each (R,G,B) triple
    >comprising the photo.
    >
    >If I were a camera, that's the kind of camera I would be, anyway.
    >
    >Funny, I just did a Google search using the arcane and cryptic search phrase
    >"white balance explained" (include quotes) and came up with a ton of hits


    What a surprise. It's about 678,000 hits to be more exact. The
    problem is finding a needle in this haystack. The great majority of
    these hits aren't relevant to auto white balance at all, and most that
    are relevant explain what auto white balance is, what it does, not how
    it does it.

    >including
    >
    >http://www.3dvelocity.com/reviews/4800/fujirev-4.htm
    >
    >which contains an explanation agreeing with my very own pre-search
    >hypothesis/conjecture. Damn, but I'm one clever little monkey, ain't I? And
    >I smell good, too! That's why ZZ Top sang "every girl crazy 'bout a
    >sharp-brained man!" Uh-huh.


    Your clever "hypothesis/conjecture" is the method I called Method 1 in
    my original post -- the post you were responding to.

    I do not agree that the reference you quote is describing this method.

    They say:
    "[T]he AUTO setting looks at the colour of light available, and tries
    to adjust it so it appears neutral in the final photo."

    Looking at the "colour of light available" is not the same as
    blending/mixing/averaging together all the colors/light that is
    reflected from the scene, which is my Method 1 and your
    "hypothesis/conjecture."

    Looking at the "colour of light available" would be a third method:

    Method 3 -- the camera senses the ambient/available light and uses
    this measurement to adjust the color of the image.

    jim
     
    jim evans, Feb 29, 2004
    #7
  8. jim evans

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:09:59
    -0600, jim evans <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:56:36 -0800, "Paul H."
    ><> wrote:


    >>including
    >>
    >>http://www.3dvelocity.com/reviews/4800/fujirev-4.htm
    >>
    >>which contains an explanation agreeing with my very own pre-search
    >>hypothesis/conjecture. Damn, but I'm one clever little monkey, ain't I? And
    >>I smell good, too! That's why ZZ Top sang "every girl crazy 'bout a
    >>sharp-brained man!" Uh-huh.

    >
    >Your clever "hypothesis/conjecture" is the method I called Method 1 in
    >my original post -- the post you were responding to.
    >
    >I do not agree that the reference you quote is describing this method.
    >
    >They say:
    >"[T]he AUTO setting looks at the colour of light available, and tries
    >to adjust it so it appears neutral in the final photo."
    >
    >Looking at the "colour of light available" is not the same as
    >blending/mixing/averaging together all the colors/light that is
    >reflected from the scene, which is my Method 1 and your
    >"hypothesis/conjecture."
    >
    >Looking at the "colour of light available" would be a third method:
    >
    >Method 3 -- the camera senses the ambient/available light and uses
    >this measurement to adjust the color of the image.


    How would a camera (with only the sensor behind the lens) sense "the
    ambient/available light" without a second sensor, or pointing the camera at
    the light source? Except for (blue) sky, a camera is normally sensing only
    *reflected* light.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
     
    John Navas, Feb 29, 2004
    #8
  9. jim evans

    jim evans Guest

    On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:10:50 GMT, John Navas
    <> wrote:
    >>Method 3 -- the camera senses the ambient/available light and uses
    >>this measurement to adjust the color of the image.

    >
    >How would a camera (with only the sensor behind the lens) sense "the
    >ambient/available light" without a second sensor, or pointing the camera at
    >the light source? Except for (blue) sky, a camera is normally sensing only
    >*reflected* light.


    I've read things that seem to say some cameras have a separate sensor
    for ambient light which they use either alone or in combination with
    the light coming through the lens to do auto white balance. I don't
    understand how all this works, that's one of the reasons for my post.

    jim
     
    jim evans, Mar 1, 2004
    #9
  10. jim evans

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on Sun, 29 Feb 2004 23:05:14
    -0600, jim evans <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:10:50 GMT, John Navas
    ><> wrote:


    >>>Method 3 -- the camera senses the ambient/available light and uses
    >>>this measurement to adjust the color of the image.

    >>
    >>How would a camera (with only the sensor behind the lens) sense "the
    >>ambient/available light" without a second sensor, or pointing the camera at
    >>the light source? Except for (blue) sky, a camera is normally sensing only
    >>*reflected* light.

    >
    >I've read things that seem to say some cameras have a separate sensor
    >for ambient light which they use either alone or in combination with
    >the light coming through the lens to do auto white balance. ...


    I think you'll be hard pressed to actually find one. ;-)

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
     
    John Navas, Mar 1, 2004
    #10
  11. jim evans

    nospam Guest

    In article <vxL0c.4809$>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >I've read things that seem to say some cameras have a separate sensor
    > >for ambient light which they use either alone or in combination with
    > >the light coming through the lens to do auto white balance. ...

    >
    > I think you'll be hard pressed to actually find one. ;-)


    nikon d2h
    canon eos-1d
    canon eos-1ds
     
    nospam, Mar 1, 2004
    #11
  12. jim evans

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <010320041134276445%> on Mon, 01 Mar 2004 11:34:27
    -0800, nospam <> wrote:

    >In article <vxL0c.4809$>, John Navas
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >I've read things that seem to say some cameras have a separate sensor
    >> >for ambient light which they use either alone or in combination with
    >> >the light coming through the lens to do auto white balance. ...

    >>
    >> I think you'll be hard pressed to actually find one. ;-)

    >
    >nikon d2h
    >canon eos-1d
    >canon eos-1ds


    Three (really just two) out of how many hundreds? ;-)

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
     
    John Navas, Mar 1, 2004
    #12
  13. jim evans

    nospam Guest

    In article <ysN0c.4904$>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <010320041134276445%> on Mon, 01 Mar 2004 11:34:27
    > -0800, nospam <> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <vxL0c.4809$>, John Navas
    > ><> wrote:
    > >
    > >> >I've read things that seem to say some cameras have a separate sensor
    > >> >for ambient light which they use either alone or in combination with
    > >> >the light coming through the lens to do auto white balance. ...
    > >>
    > >> I think you'll be hard pressed to actually find one. ;-)

    > >
    > >nikon d2h
    > >canon eos-1d
    > >canon eos-1ds

    >
    > Three (really just two) out of how many hundreds? ;-)


    three out of roughly a dozen dslrs (although i vaguely remember there
    being another one but i can't seem to find it).

    its highly unlikely consumer cameras will bother with a secondary
    sensor for more accurate white balance. and even if you do count all
    the consumer cameras, nobody said it had to be a common feature. one
    could ask how many cameras have interchangable lenses, out of how many
    hundreds of models...

    furthermore, the 1ds is different in many ways from the 1d, notably the
    price, but the size and resolution of the sensor as well. although they
    are similar, i'd hardly classify them as the same.
     
    nospam, Mar 1, 2004
    #13
  14. jim evans

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <010320041406069366%> on Mon, 01 Mar 2004 14:06:06
    -0800, nospam <> wrote:

    >In article <ysN0c.4904$>, John Navas
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> In <010320041134276445%> on Mon, 01 Mar 2004 11:34:27
    >> -0800, nospam <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >In article <vxL0c.4809$>, John Navas
    >> ><> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> >I've read things that seem to say some cameras have a separate sensor
    >> >> >for ambient light which they use either alone or in combination with
    >> >> >the light coming through the lens to do auto white balance. ...
    >> >>
    >> >> I think you'll be hard pressed to actually find one. ;-)
    >> >
    >> >nikon d2h
    >> >canon eos-1d
    >> >canon eos-1ds

    >>
    >> Three (really just two) out of how many hundreds? ;-)

    >
    >three out of roughly a dozen dslrs (although i vaguely remember there
    >being another one but i can't seem to find it).


    I'd call that (just two very high end DSLRs) hard-pressed, exceptions that
    prove the rule, but, as always, YMMV.

    >its highly unlikely consumer cameras will bother with a secondary
    >sensor for more accurate white balance. ...


    Part of the probable reason is that such a sensor has limited value, since it
    can only measure incident light at the camera, not the object, which can be
    quite different.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
     
    John Navas, Mar 1, 2004
    #14
  15. jim evans

    hfs2 Guest

    I have a dx4330 and the white balance is forever
    bouncing around (in certain environments). That's the one
    thing I wanted in this camera - a way to lock down the white balance.
    You can see how this thing thinks by taking a movie with it.
    It shifts all the time. Its can be bad with pictures indoors. One shot
    will be red, the next white. My video camera has such a lockdown and
    you can understand why given the length and various light conditions
    it must go thru on a shoot.

    "William Jackson" <> wrote in message news:<c1lkh7$3v1$>...
    > "jim evans" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > "Most digital cameras feature automatic white balance, this means that
    > > the camera looks at the overall colour of the image and calculates the
    > > best-fit white balance, however these systems are often fooled
    > > (especially if taking a photograph dominated by one colour, say
    > > green)."
    > >
    > > Method 2 - The algorithm searches the image for the lightest area and
    > > assumes this is white. This area is then used to color balance the
    > > entire image.
    > >
    > > I'm under the impression method 2 is more common in prosumer and
    > > DSLRs.
    > >
    > > I don't know how to tell which is being used by a given camera.
    > >
    > > I assume there may be other methods, but these two are the only ones
    > > I'm aware of.
    > >
    > > Does anybody know where there's a good explanation of auto white
    > > balancing they can point me to?

    >
    >
    >
    >
    > It's WAY more complicated than this. In fact, fooling the cameras these
    > days with different kinds of lights and different colors doesn't happen.
    > The camera firmware is significantly smarter about this (at least the Kodak
    > ones)
    >
    >
    >
    > It's also proprietary, so I can't tell you.
     
    hfs2, Mar 2, 2004
    #15
  16. jim evans

    nospam Guest

    In article <FfP0c.4939$>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >> >> I think you'll be hard pressed to actually find one. ;-)
    > >> >
    > >> >nikon d2h
    > >> >canon eos-1d
    > >> >canon eos-1ds
    > >>
    > >> Three (really just two) out of how many hundreds? ;-)

    > >
    > >three out of roughly a dozen dslrs (although i vaguely remember there
    > >being another one but i can't seem to find it).

    >
    > I'd call that (just two very high end DSLRs) hard-pressed, exceptions that
    > prove the rule, but, as always, YMMV.


    you still haven't explained how you get 'just two very high end dslrs'
    out of a list of three different cameras. is this mxsmanic-math?:)

    and out of roughly a dozen current dslrs, three of them with a
    secondary sensor means roughly one fourth of dslrs have this. in my
    book, that is not 'hard-pressed.' but as you say, ymmv.

    > Part of the probable reason is that such a sensor has limited value, since it
    > can only measure incident light at the camera, not the object, which can be
    > quite different.


    yes it can, but it isn't always different, and i'm sure that factor was
    incorporated into the camera's white balance algorithm. perhaps it not
    that important to have two sensors, but apparently canon and nikon
    thought otherwise.
     
    nospam, Mar 2, 2004
    #16
  17. jim evans

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <010320041918342603%> on Mon, 01 Mar 2004 19:18:34
    -0800, nospam <> wrote:

    >In article <FfP0c.4939$>, John Navas
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >> >> I think you'll be hard pressed to actually find one. ;-)
    >> >> >
    >> >> >nikon d2h
    >> >> >canon eos-1d
    >> >> >canon eos-1ds
    >> >>
    >> >> Three (really just two) out of how many hundreds? ;-)
    >> >
    >> >three out of roughly a dozen dslrs (although i vaguely remember there
    >> >being another one but i can't seem to find it).

    >>
    >> I'd call that (just two very high end DSLRs) hard-pressed, exceptions that
    >> prove the rule, but, as always, YMMV.

    >
    >you still haven't explained how you get 'just two very high end dslrs'
    >out of a list of three different cameras. is this mxsmanic-math?:)


    Two versions of the same camera are still just one camera, IMHO at least.

    >and out of roughly a dozen current dslrs, three of them with a
    >secondary sensor means roughly one fourth of dslrs have this. in my
    >book, that is not 'hard-pressed.' but as you say, ymmv.


    Since this thread didn't start with just high-end DSLRs, I'd say the universe
    is all digital cameras.

    >> Part of the probable reason is that such a sensor has limited value, since it
    >> can only measure incident light at the camera, not the object, which can be
    >> quite different.

    >
    >yes it can, but it isn't always different, and i'm sure that factor was
    >incorporated into the camera's white balance algorithm. perhaps it not
    >that important to have two sensors, but apparently canon and nikon
    >thought otherwise.


    It might well just be a not terribly important feature that's intended to
    justify the high-end status of those cameras, which have a wide range of white
    balance options.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
     
    John Navas, Mar 2, 2004
    #17
  18. jim evans

    nospam Guest

    In article <kQT0c.5041$>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >you still haven't explained how you get 'just two very high end dslrs'
    > >out of a list of three different cameras. is this mxsmanic-math?:)

    >
    > Two versions of the same camera are still just one camera, IMHO at least.


    there are numerous differences (most notable is the 11mp full frame
    cmos sensor versus a 4mp 1.3 crop ccd) that make these two distinct
    cameras rather than different versions of the same thing.

    > >and out of roughly a dozen current dslrs, three of them with a
    > >secondary sensor means roughly one fourth of dslrs have this. in my
    > >book, that is not 'hard-pressed.' but as you say, ymmv.

    >
    > Since this thread didn't start with just high-end DSLRs, I'd say the universe
    > is all digital cameras.


    twin sensor white balance is a high end feature.
     
    nospam, Mar 2, 2004
    #18
  19. jim evans

    jim evans Guest

    On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 20:57:02 GMT, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    >[POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    >In <010320041134276445%> on Mon, 01 Mar 2004 11:34:27
    >-0800, nospam <> wrote:
    >
    >>In article <vxL0c.4809$>, John Navas
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>> >I've read things that seem to say some cameras have a separate sensor
    >>> >for ambient light which they use either alone or in combination with
    >>> >the light coming through the lens to do auto white balance. ...
    >>>
    >>> I think you'll be hard pressed to actually find one. ;-)

    >>
    >>nikon d2h
    >>canon eos-1d
    >>canon eos-1ds

    >
    >Three (really just two) out of how many hundreds? ;-)


    The Olympus E-1 is another. Quote from an E-1 owner, "The Oly E-1 has
    a built in incident color temp meter. It's that translucent white spot
    on the upper side of the camera."

    You started by asking how a camera could sense ambient light (implying
    it wasn't possible). When how it was done was explained you said in
    effect 'Show me one." Now you've been shown several you want to argue
    about how many cameras is enough, and whether two different cameras
    were really one this quantity?? Did you enter this thread just to be
    argumentative?

    My question was intended to cover all approaches used on digital
    cameras -- it wasn't restricted to cheap digital cameras.

    jim
     
    jim evans, Mar 2, 2004
    #19
  20. jim evans

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on Tue, 02 Mar 2004 09:17:17
    -0600, jim evans <> wrote:

    >On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 20:57:02 GMT, John Navas
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>In <010320041134276445%> on Mon, 01 Mar 2004 11:34:27
    >>-0800, nospam <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>In article <vxL0c.4809$>, John Navas
    >>><> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> >I've read things that seem to say some cameras have a separate sensor
    >>>> >for ambient light which they use either alone or in combination with
    >>>> >the light coming through the lens to do auto white balance. ...
    >>>>
    >>>> I think you'll be hard pressed to actually find one. ;-)
    >>>
    >>>nikon d2h
    >>>canon eos-1d
    >>>canon eos-1ds

    >>
    >>Three (really just two) out of how many hundreds? ;-)

    >
    >The Olympus E-1 is another. ...


    OK. That's three.

    >You started by asking how a camera could sense ambient light (implying
    >it wasn't possible).


    That wasn't me.

    >When how it was done was explained you said in
    >effect 'Show me one."


    No, I said, "hard pressed to actually find one," and thus far we've come up
    with only three examples, all of which are very high-end cameras. The great
    majority of digital cameras can only measure reflected light, as I noted.

    >... Did you enter this thread just to be
    >argumentative?


    No, only to point out that the great majority of digital cameras can't measure
    the temperature of incident light.

    >My question was intended to cover all approaches used on digital
    >cameras -- it wasn't restricted to cheap digital cameras.


    Me too, but something confined to a very few high-end cameras isn't meaningful
    for the great majority of the market.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
     
    John Navas, Mar 2, 2004
    #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. jeff liss
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    514
    Andrew
    Sep 5, 2003
  2. Ralph O'Rourke

    How does AWB (auto white balance) work?

    Ralph O'Rourke, Sep 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    851
    Jimmy
    Sep 12, 2003
  3. Radio913

    Auto White Balance Affected RAW file in Powershot G3!

    Radio913, Sep 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    515
  4. Jan Werbiñski

    White Balance - auto or custom?

    Jan Werbiñski, Oct 4, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,611
    MikeWhy
    Oct 12, 2003
  5. Steve Cutchen

    Custom White Balance: Gray Card or White Card?

    Steve Cutchen, Oct 21, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,630
Loading...

Share This Page