logarithmic cameras (SLR or otherwise)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by jonathan, Dec 15, 2003.

  1. jonathan

    jonathan Guest

    hey all,

    I was wondering if anyone had any news on the state of logarithmic
    cameras; for night shots, I've been doing tons of autobracketing,
    stitching (as in panotools and PTGUI), and contrast masking to
    overcome what is really a technology issue - that both film and
    standard CMOS cameras don't have nearly enough contrast range to
    handle the large light variation that happens in lots of different
    scenes.

    Anyways, when I search the web for logarithmic sensors, I don't come
    up with much except a couple of 'experimental' sensors for
    applications like machine vision; I was hoping that someone might have
    a good overview of where this technology is, and how fast it might get
    to market.

    anyone got some pointers or a good summary?

    thanks,

    jon
    jonathan, Dec 15, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. jonathan

    DJ Guest

    On 14 Dec 2003 21:28:35 -0800, (jonathan) wrote:

    >hey all,
    >
    >I was wondering if anyone had any news on the state of logarithmic
    >cameras; for night shots, I've been doing tons of autobracketing,
    >stitching (as in panotools and PTGUI), and contrast masking to
    >overcome what is really a technology issue - that both film and
    >standard CMOS cameras don't have nearly enough contrast range to
    >handle the large light variation that happens in lots of different
    >scenes.
    >
    >Anyways, when I search the web for logarithmic sensors, I don't come
    >up with much except a couple of 'experimental' sensors for
    >applications like machine vision; I was hoping that someone might have
    >a good overview of where this technology is, and how fast it might get
    >to market.
    >
    >anyone got some pointers or a good summary?
    >
    >thanks,
    >
    >jon


    A logarithmic response would seem like a great idea to get more dynamic range,
    or "lattitude" in photographic parlance. There are 2 problems with this, as I
    see it:

    1. Silicon sensors are inherently linear when used in photo current mode. That
    is the mode used in camera sensors because the photo current, proportional to
    light level, is integrated over the time of the exposure. Photo diodes used in
    voltage mode (e.g. for power generation) are logarithmic, but there is probably
    no feasible way of using voltage mode in a camera sensor.

    2. One might propose a linear sensor array followed by a logarithmic amplifier.
    What this would actually amount to is increasing the amplification for low light
    levels and reducing it for high levels. However, the noise would get you.

    I practice I think it's safe to say that using 12 bit RAW mode (who knows, maybe
    14-bit or 16-bit in future cameras) extracts just about everything that can be
    extracted from the sensor at the current noise levels.

    dj
    DJ, Dec 15, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jonathan

    jonathan Guest

    >
    > A logarithmic response would seem like a great idea to get more dynamic range,
    > or "lattitude" in photographic parlance.


    ....

    > I practice I think it's safe to say that using 12 bit RAW mode (who knows, maybe
    > 14-bit or 16-bit in future cameras) extracts just about everything that can be
    > extracted from the sensor at the current noise levels.
    >


    well, that's the source of my frustration (I've shot raw and I've used
    DSLR pro). It extracts way too little (or too much, depending on your
    point of view) and no matter what kind of spin you put on the picture
    in either DSLR pro or photoshop, the shot doesn't come out how you
    actually see the scene at night. You can approximate it with lots of
    work, but that's about it. things get blown out too easy.


    I'd imagine that this would be a *big* incentive for camera
    manufacturers - I can see their adverts: 'perfect frames every time!'
    and 'our camera takes pictures the way the eye sees!' But I don't
    know enough to say whether the difficulties you mention are
    engineering difficulties to overcome or physical impossibilities.

    I'd guess the former, but that's just me, and what do I know :)

    jon
    jonathan, Dec 15, 2003
    #3
  4. jonathan

    DJ Guest

    On 15 Dec 2003 14:30:51 -0800, (jonathan) wrote:

    >>
    >> A logarithmic response would seem like a great idea to get more dynamic range,
    >> or "lattitude" in photographic parlance.

    >
    >...
    >
    >> I practice I think it's safe to say that using 12 bit RAW mode (who knows, maybe
    >> 14-bit or 16-bit in future cameras) extracts just about everything that can be
    >> extracted from the sensor at the current noise levels.
    >>

    >
    >well, that's the source of my frustration (I've shot raw and I've used
    >DSLR pro). It extracts way too little (or too much, depending on your
    >point of view) and no matter what kind of spin you put on the picture
    >in either DSLR pro or photoshop, the shot doesn't come out how you
    >actually see the scene at night. You can approximate it with lots of
    >work, but that's about it. things get blown out too easy.
    >
    >
    >I'd imagine that this would be a *big* incentive for camera
    >manufacturers - I can see their adverts: 'perfect frames every time!'
    >and 'our camera takes pictures the way the eye sees!' But I don't
    >know enough to say whether the difficulties you mention are
    >engineering difficulties to overcome or physical impossibilities.
    >


    Yesterday's physical impossibilities have a tendency to lead to tomorrow's
    engineering achievements, so who knows? :)

    >I'd guess the former, but that's just me, and what do I know :)
    >
    >jon
    DJ, Dec 16, 2003
    #4
  5. jonathan

    Guest

    In message <>,
    DJ <> wrote:

    >I practice I think it's safe to say that using 12 bit RAW mode (who knows, maybe
    >14-bit or 16-bit in future cameras) extracts just about everything that can be
    >extracted from the sensor at the current noise levels.


    You could take a RAW converter that outputs linear data, and stack
    several images taken at ISO 100, and then do your own curves. Some of
    the linear converters don't scale the images to full histogram, so they
    fall in a range like 0 to 63 or 0 to 15 (out of 255), and in that case,
    you could add several of them without even having to average them. I
    don't know when I'm going to get around to it, but I was going to alter
    dcraw.c to output uninflated values that ignore blackpoint, so that I
    can get the *real* raw data out of the files. You should be able to add
    16 of them together, at least, without any averaging.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Dec 18, 2003
    #5
  6. jonathan

    Guest

    In message <>,
    (jonathan) wrote:

    >well, that's the source of my frustration (I've shot raw and I've used
    >DSLR pro). It extracts way too little (or too much, depending on your
    >point of view) and no matter what kind of spin you put on the picture
    >in either DSLR pro or photoshop, the shot doesn't come out how you
    >actually see the scene at night. You can approximate it with lots of
    >work, but that's about it. things get blown out too easy.
    >
    >
    >I'd imagine that this would be a *big* incentive for camera
    >manufacturers - I can see their adverts: 'perfect frames every time!'
    >and 'our camera takes pictures the way the eye sees!' But I don't
    >know enough to say whether the difficulties you mention are
    >engineering difficulties to overcome or physical impossibilities.
    >
    >I'd guess the former, but that's just me, and what do I know :)


    Sounds to me like you're simply overexposing, and/or not doing the RAW
    conversion with the right tools.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Dec 18, 2003
    #6
  7. jonathan

    jonathan Guest

    wrote in message news:<>...
    > In message <>,
    > DJ <> wrote:
    >
    > >I practice I think it's safe to say that using 12 bit RAW mode (who knows, maybe
    > >14-bit or 16-bit in future cameras) extracts just about everything that can be
    > >extracted from the sensor at the current noise levels.

    >
    > You could take a RAW converter that outputs linear data, and stack
    > several images taken at ISO 100, and then do your own curves. Some of
    > the linear converters don't scale the images to full histogram, so they
    > fall in a range like 0 to 63 or 0 to 15 (out of 255), and in that case,
    > you could add several of them without even having to average them. I
    > don't know when I'm going to get around to it, but I was going to alter
    > dcraw.c to output uninflated values that ignore blackpoint, so that I
    > can get the *real* raw data out of the files. You should be able to add
    > 16 of them together, at least, without any averaging.



    I'm using DSLR pro, which *does* support histogram manipulation, and
    does support curves. It also supports manipulation of exposure values.
    I've never been able to get the exact effect I want (seeing with the
    camera what my mind's eye sees at night) without a tripod, low ISO
    levels, a fast fast lens and a non-trivial amount of effort. And
    sometimes not even then. Simple manipulation of raw doesn't get me
    there.

    When you say 'take several images at ISO 100' I'm assuming you mean
    the same image - which limits me to the above. Or are you meaning
    something different? And what is dcraw.c? Is it a package or a c file?

    jon
    jonathan, Dec 30, 2003
    #7
    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. Cruciferaceae Roseopallens Michiganensis

    Re: Linux Sucks and Nothing in this Group goes to prove otherwise.

    Cruciferaceae Roseopallens Michiganensis, Feb 6, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    395
    Ingoldiella Sullae Deflexum
    Feb 6, 2005
  2. Giorgis

    Darkroom:digital or otherwise ?

    Giorgis, Nov 2, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    719
    Giorgis
    Nov 6, 2003
  3. Alfred Molon

    Logarithmic RAW images

    Alfred Molon, Mar 4, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    746
    John Navas
    Mar 7, 2004
  4. news.rcn.com
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,300
    news.rcn.com
    Oct 18, 2006
  5. SLR and SLR like cameras

    , Aug 30, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    404
    Prometheus
    Aug 31, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page