FWIW, I just did a little experiment with XT5 raw files using the 100%, 200%, and 400% settings. I photographed an eight-patch gray scale chart at ISO 800 and f/5.6, letting the camera select the shutter speed.
As expected, the histograms for the test images show eight sharp peaks separated by deep valleys, with each peak corresponding to one of the eight gray values from the chart.
If the dynamic range of the raw file were expanded by choosing 200% or 400% we would expect the peaks to move closer together as the dynamic range expanded. E.g. those eight patches would cover a smaller percentage of an expanded 200% or 400% dynamic range.
That's not what happened. In order to compare, I copied the histograms from the three files and superimposed and aligned them as layers in Photoshop, where I could adjust their transparency in order to see two at once. The raw file curves looked virtually identical with their peaks exactly the same distance apart on the histogram. (In my somewhat informal test, my 400% image was darker with the whole intact histogram shifted very slightly toward darker values, but that could be a result of my handholding the camera, etc.)
I expect that in jpg files the 200% and 400% apply a post-capture curve that raises the brightness at the low luminosity end of the scale — which would move the peaks closer together and to the right. (I took Fujifilm's claim for granted and did not test the jpg files.)
But it appears to me that the raw file is unaffected by these settings. Whatever is happening, I don't see any indication that the raw file DR is somehow expanded by 200% (one stop) or 400% (two stops).
FWIW, I just did a little experiment with XT5 raw files using the 100%, 200%, and 400% settings. I photographed an eight-patch gray scale chart at ISO 800 and f/5.6, letting the camera select the shutter speed.
As expected, the histograms for the test images show eight sharp peaks separated by deep valleys, with each peak corresponding to one of the eight gray values from the chart.
If the dynamic range of the raw file were expanded by choosing 200% or 400% we would expect the peaks to move closer together as the dynamic range expanded. E.g. those eight patches would cover a smaller percentage of an expanded 200% or 400% dynamic range.
That's not what happened. The raw file curves looked virtually identical with their peaks exactly the same distance apart on the histogram. (In my somewhat informal test, my 400% image was darker with the whole intact histogram shifted very slightly toward darker values, but that could be a result of my handholding the camera, etc.)
I expect that in jpg files the 200% and 400% apply a post-capture curve that raises the brightness at the low luminosity end of the scale — which would move the peaks closer together and to the right. (I took Fujifilm's claim for granted and did not test the jpg files.)
But it appears to me that the raw file is unaffected by these settings. Whatever is happening, I don't see any indication that the raw file DR is somehow expanded by 200% (one stop) or 400% (two stops).
Jan 30, 2026 at 01:28 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #16977146 « DR100% vs 200/400% »
