Dynamic range in the digital world

[AMG]

I hope someone can better explain this to me, but I am aware that the last hurdle in the digital world is dynamic range ( or tonal range - not sure what the proper term is ). I would like to know a little more about this, I have been putting off getting an SLR because I was afraid that a few months later, they would introduce a camera that captures more range ( closer to film ). I know RAW is an excellent format to shoot in especially if you need to adjust the image, but in the end, does it give a result with more range or is it just the flexibility of working without compression. Should I keep waiting or is thjat just silly. Is the limitation I am referring to a limitation of the sensor ? If not, then what is ?

thanks very much

[M0NK3H]

i was looking at the Fuji S3 pro and almost all the reviews i saw mentioned there being a really good dynamic range of colour " creating a near-ture look of film"

[Longwatcher]

The limitation is that of the sensor and really at this point only applies to B+W film. And it is more technically dynamic range (DR) since we are dealing with the sensor. (tonal range would be term for related thing in output of a print or screen display)

Today's new production camera's (at least Canon's DSLRs) have better DR then color film did, except possibly the absolute highest quality film, not what most people used.

On the flip side good B+W film still has more DR then even the best DSLR (1DsMkII from what I have read) and of course the best B+W film has even a touch more DR. However it is not that far off. Also in select situations the limitations of digital can be overcome and actually achieve higher DR in an image then achievable via even the absolute best film available commercially. One such technique is High Dynamic Range (HDR) processing. HDR's catch is it requires multiple exposures.

All that said even DSLR's DR equals or exceeds what most people can see on a single print or screen because neither the screen or paper has as much dynamic or tonal range because of printer/screen limitations (especially screens at this point). Although DR is the camera's ability to "see" more stops this kind of translates loosly to levels of grayscale (sort of) and I will put it this way most human eyes can only differentiate 256 levels of gray, but the DSLRs can do 4092 levels; meanwhile human eyes can do I seem to remember about the equivilant of 16 stops while DSLRs can only do 10 stops at most with a single shot, but you can only see the equivilant of 6 at a specific point in time while DSLRs can do about 20 between two shots. (note my eye numbers are from fuzzy memory and may be off). But between eyeys and sensors we start talking two different things as for example sensors can see into near infrared and humans usually can't.

I am probably losing you so I will sumarize with DSLRs not there yet, but close enough for most people and you are not likely to notice the difference except in unusual to rare circumstances.

Just what I know, remember and opinion,

P.S. Also I have read it will be a least a couple ( >2 )more years before true better DR comes out at least in the Canon line if what i have read recently is even close to true.

[Phil V]

Longwatcher's explanation was excellent, I'd have just said that 'theoretically' or 'measurably' the DSLR loses out on DR to print film, however, you or I would never see it, as it's not a printable difference. What's more, we're still talking about the best films. When you get to measuring DSLR's against consumer film there's really no competition.
However, the difference is there, which means that if you're smart enough to truly understand the difference - you're smart enough to be able to shoot round it - so you'd probably never notice anyway.
There'll always be a reason not to go digital, but for most people the advantages FAR outweigh the disadvantages.

[harryb49]

Both of the above responses are right on the money. If you are aware of the issue with film camera then a similar issue occurs with digital cameras and you obviously are sharp enough to properly expose for the image so that you get maximum tonality without washing out the highlights or making the shadows too dark and muddy.

Harry

[PhotosGuy]

I know RAW is an excellent format to shoot in especially if you need to adjust the image, but in the end, does it give a result with more range or is it just the flexibility of working without compression.
Form your own conclusions. ;)
Why I love RAW - '53 Ford Sunliner (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43761)

The Light's Right Studio - Blended Exposures Revisited (http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/tutorials/BlendedExposuresRevisited.pdf)

Dynamic range question... (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=135097)

[Mike Panic]

i think above and beyond and probably before the technical answers, you need to ask yourself, what is digital not giving you that film is

outside of b&w and certain chromes, like velvia and e-100vs, digital is everything film was and more