PDA

View Full Version : built in ND filter


ifurlong
17th of August 2004 (Tue), 12:06
why cant canon have a sort of built in ND filter? I think it would be cool to have, say 10-15 stops to play with. Seems like a simple task, reducing the sensitivity of the sensor

Jon
17th of August 2004 (Tue), 12:27
Well let's see . . . ISO 3200-ISO 100 and F/22 - f/4. Sounds like about 12 stops of range to me, without even playing with shutter speeds. Or shoot raw and get a couple more stops from post-processing plus what you can fake with EC. You do carry and use a polarizer, right? Sounds like the tools you need are there, just waiting to be used.

timmyquest
17th of August 2004 (Tue), 12:31
Well let's see . . . ISO 3200-ISO 100 and F/22 - f/4. Sounds like about 12 stops of range to me, without even playing with shutter speeds. Or shoot raw and get a couple more stops from post-processing plus what you can fake with EC. You do carry and use a polarizer, right? Sounds like the tools you need are there, just waiting to be used.

From whta i have seen there is not much that replaces a true ND filter aside from a tripod and alot of patient PS work.

The more you can get done with the picture the better the photograph will turn out.

I too had an idea like this a while back.

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29206&highlight=smart+cmos

CyberDyneSystems
17th of August 2004 (Tue), 12:32
Most of the "G" Cameras have a built in ND specifically to make up for what the cameras lack in aperture control and shutter speed.


In other words.. sinc the "G"s DON'T have all the features that Jon mentions... they compensated by adding the ND...

...with an EOS.. you have all the settings available.. making a built in ND of no need.

ifurlong
17th of August 2004 (Tue), 12:33
sorry, I was not clear, sometimes the shot I want requires my 13 stop ND filter, I can get 2-8 min. exposures in full daylight @ f8 iso 100

Jon
17th of August 2004 (Tue), 12:41
Add a pouch to your tripod to carry one in - preferably a graduated ND, at that. Then you can control better where you're getting the hold-back. Or make a "pin-hole" lens. 4th place winner in the Washington Post Travel photo contest (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/photo/travel/G63119-2004Aug13.html) was just that. (Registration required).

ifurlong
17th of August 2004 (Tue), 13:04
what are you talking about?! I have many ND filters already, of all sorts, I dont need advice as to how to use one, I am just wondering if this could effect could be achived in software

please stick to the topic

timmyquest
17th of August 2004 (Tue), 13:05
I think the bigger issue is the sensors themself and their narrow range when compared with film.

ifurlong
17th of August 2004 (Tue), 13:09
well yes, but I think that turning down the sensitivity ( lowering the ISO) is different than the dynamic range of the sensor. But correct me if I am mistaken

timmyquest
17th of August 2004 (Tue), 13:12
well yes, but I think that turning down the sensitivity ( lowering the ISO) is different than the dynamic range of the sensor. But correct me if I am mistaken

Thats not what i mean.

There was a recent discussion here where i got these numbers but the dynamic range of film is 10-15 stops where on our sensors it's something like 5-8 stops.

So instead of adding some software that works like an ND filter, how about fix the real problem.

ifurlong
17th of August 2004 (Tue), 13:18
yes, print film is ~12 stops and slide film is ~7, the same as our dig cams, thats why it is easy to blow out highlights with dig capture.
But still, even if the dynamic range was 15 stops, you could not get the kind of exposures that I am talking about.
But your point is rignt, higher dynamic range will give us better captures, I am sure that in the future manufactures will improve this

iwatkins
17th of August 2004 (Tue), 15:57
Built in ND ? I guess that would be possbile. But I guess if they did that people would then want it to be variable, then graduated.

As you suggest, it would be much better in software. i.e. you set your aperture and shutter speed and it simply reduces the ISO or applies a filter (in software) to match this.

I.e. if the sensor could go down to say ISO 1 that would help.

However, when you get into long captures in bright light you would get problems of heat build up in the sensor, so maybe that is why it hasn't been done, I.e. physical problems using CMOS sensors. I don't know enough of how they work to comment fully.

Cheers

Ian