DrPablo wrote:
Margulis isn't god, and there are experts with dissenting opinions from his.
Nope, but I did hear he's Yoda...
WOW!
In reading through this incredibly arduous compilation of dissenting views, I went back and forth about locking it fully three times. I believe that there is still some insight to be gained on the subject, so I'm going to leave it. Hopefully from here on out we can keep it on an even keel, and get something constructive from it.
BeeMan458 wrote:
Exactly for the falsity of your above is why I went exclusively to RAW and 16bit TIFF. There's no way JPEG is ever going compete as to issues of HDR for the simple reason, the information isn't there to work with and at 8bits, the information is severely restricted and easily blown out with each post-processing step. That in fact, is one of the "wonders" of the newly announced 1D3 in that it now captures at the rate of 14bits as opposed to it's older siblings 12bit capture rate. To me this is a "huge," understated improvement as to the 1D3 capturing and rendering a digital file; a full doubling of captured and rendered shading information.
Wow! That's, in my book, a massive, noteworthy leap in technology.
08 bit = 00256 shades
10 bit = 01024 shades
12 bit = 04096 shades
14 bit = 16384 shades
16 bit = 65536 shades
Thass a whole lotta difference, in my book, in which to work with.
So as to not to be disrespectful, I'll be happy to read what you have to say as to being the last word in your efforts to show me the error of my ways. ...Show more →
Looks to me you're confusing two independent terms: Tone Gradation, and DR.
If shadow detail is part of this discussion then I recommend you to the ClarkVision website (not sure if I can post the URL because of copyright considerations here?).
Clark has done a lot of interesting and rigorous work on this topic to include: 8 and 16 bit, JPEG and RAW, He also has other, comprehensive, articles which evaluate pixel size, S?N etc. etc..
The one thing that your chart indicates is that I've owned several cameras. I never tested my 30D for your chart, but if I get the time, I'll give it a whirl. I'd bet it'll perform about the same as the 20D though.
Hope Pondria maintains that table and adds the Rebel XTi. 30D, and 1D Mk III to it. I myself am looking forward to seeing how all of canon's D-SLR's compare to each other and to Nikon's D-SLR's
pascal03 wrote:
Hope Pondria maintains that table and adds the Rebel XTi. 30D, and 1D Mk III to it. I myself am looking forward to seeing how all of canon's D-SLR's compare to each other and to Nikon's D-SLR's
Well, data are produced by FMers. As long as they report their numbers, I'll keep updating the table.
roli_bark wrote:
Thanks. At what page no. is this mentioned ?
Page 10:
Dynamic range at low ISO speeds is about the same with the 1D Mark III as it is with the EOS-1D Mark II and Mark II N despite the 1D Mark III’s increased resolution.
Page 12:
Hi Light Tone Priority
This new feature extends the dynamic range of highlights by about one stop and improves gradation within highlight areas. By expanding the range from the correct exposure level (18% gray) to the maximum allowable highlight level, the gradation from the grays to the highlights becomes smoother and loss in highlight detail is minimized.
as long as we're off topic, somebody care to explain to me?
so, i understand that there's how much you can show in one picture, dynamic range or whatever you want to call it.
then, you have programs where you can brighten certain areas. some cameras produce files that you can brighten very well, without noise (like the multi-colored noise). some cameras don't.
does that not count as DR?
cause i've noticed my fuji does that very well-you can use the shadow function in photoshop or whatever and the dark areas become bright and look just fine, without funny colored noise. whereas some other cameras don't.
It sure does but some here have trouble with your above because they're too hide bound (egocentric) by their BS to realize or acknowledge the truth cause they know better than what you're seeing with your eyes. Grrrr!
Aren't the Fuji D-SLR's marketed to show the DR flexibility of the camera based on the capability of fuji HR technology.
I think, and may be off on this, but aren's Fuji sensors built with a set of red and blue (or maybe it was green) pixels or something along those lines which makes them better at capturing a lot more DR than most bayer type sensors ?
DR is dependent on a combination of the physical sensor design (pixel size, microlens, gain amplification, A/D conversion, etc...) and software (processing algorithm).
The hardware end is fixed, but you can try to maximize your DR in the raw processing. This really depends on the software/algorithms you use to convert your raw files. There are many techniques to recover highlights and shadows and many of the advanced algorithms will go into the frequency domain of the signal via fourier transforms to extract information that cannot otherwise be detected normally.
beewee wrote:
There are many techniques to recover highlights and shadows and many of the advanced algorithms will go into the frequency domain of the signal via fourier transforms to extract information that cannot otherwise be detected normally.
Tom_W wrote:
The one thing that your chart indicates is that I've owned several cameras. I never tested my 30D for your chart, but if I get the time, I'll give it a whirl. I'd bet it'll perform about the same as the 20D though.
Please add some other cameras such as the xti and of course the 1dmkIII when it comes out. I think this is a pretty good chart although it would be a bit more comprehensive if it included dated on the dynamic range of shadows, and highlights.
I have heard rumors that the xti has the same dynamic range as an 1dmkII. It would be nice to see evidence of this.
gotta defend the good ol' 1Ds. 
