How long before DSLRS have human vision dynamic range?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

No more blown out whites, bloomed out edges
of things (like tree leaves against a bright sky)
detail in the shadows on a cloudless day, etc?
-Rich

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> No more blown out whites, bloomed out edges
> of things (like tree leaves against a bright sky)
> detail in the shadows on a cloudless day, etc?

That would be nice but no printer or monitor can show that either so
you'd have to apply a curve to even see it. I think the human eye
constantly changes it's exposure for each twitch into another range so
it's really an illusion, only the center part is visible at any given
moment. My guess is you'd need a super big sensor and a 64 bit or
whatever file system that's non-standard and then apply the curves which
would probably require manual tweaking.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:hvega11nljsu6oei9bk0bod55brm4b2r48@4ax.com...
> No more blown out whites, bloomed out edges
> of things (like tree leaves against a bright sky)
> detail in the shadows on a cloudless day, etc?
> -Rich
Anyone tried to find thier blind spot? at about a foot away you can make an
X the size of a quater dissapear. Might not be such a great feature on a
lens.
this is so crazy
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/hom [...] ndspot.htm

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:


> But the major problem, and one that effects many photographs isn't the
> dynamic range problem, it's the lack of depth of an image versus what
> our eyes see. That one will take long time to address since they've
> had holograms for decades and they still don't look very good.
>

You're confusing "depth" with stereo vision, they've had a solution to that
for MANY decades! Guess you never had a viewmaster?
--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jeff R wrote:

> * the dog-ugly carrying case (also variable)

ROFL!!


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0523-7, 06/10/2005
Tested on: 6/11/2005 12:31:42 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <hvega11nljsu6oei9bk0bod55brm4b2r48@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>No more blown out whites,

Highlight-sensing metering could do this, without more DR.

>bloomed out edges
>of things (like tree leaves against a bright sky)

Stay away from ISO 100. IMO, the lowest ISO on a DSLR should be
reserved for low-contrast or high-key scenes, at least when using the
default metering.

>detail in the shadows on a cloudless day, etc?

As I've said many times before, using a filter that makes the overall
response of the camera white can help here. On most DLSRs, the red
channel is almost a stop darker than the green, and the blue channel is
about a half-stop darker than the green. Using the right magenta
filtering can bring the levels up. Also, make sure your exposure is
fully saturated. It is easy for a camera's metering to under-expose an
image with lots of bright areas; it tries to make the output grey, when
in fact it should be almost white.

Right now, most cameras seem to be limited to 12-bit RAW digitization,
which is really poor for dynamic range, unless you intend to keep the
shadows dark and not boost them. 14- or 16- bit digitization should do
a lot better, *if* the readout circuitry can keep track of the local
blackpoint. I think that instead of having the black pixels on two
edges, they should be on all four edges so that horizontal and vertical
blackpoint ramps can be established, to nearly eliminate banding.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jeff R" <contact.me@this.ng> wrote in message
news:42a84bd7$0$10316$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:hvega11nljsu6oei9bk0bod55brm4b2r48@4ax.com...
> > No more blown out whites, bloomed out edges
> > of things (like tree leaves against a bright sky)
> > detail in the shadows on a cloudless day, etc?
> > -Rich
>
> Too bad about:
>
> * random floaters;
> * the dirty big blind spot;
> * shortsightedness at 1/2 MTBF, *and*
> * degrading performance during entire lifetime;
> * out of focus first thing in the morning;
> * being red-tinged after a party;
> * being inoperative 8 hrs a day (variable);
> * taking half an hour to develop low-light sensitivity;
> * the dog-ugly carrying case (also variable)
>
> --
> Jeff R.
> (Hey! That sensor ain't so bad after all.)


Sorry, Jeff, but Sigma's SD9 and SD10 have already got your list covered.