Dynamic Range-Can't they or Won't they?

AJSJones wrote in post #17743892
This is sensor DR and all your photons are belong us

I do not understand this sentence. The grammar doesn't seem to make sense to me, and this is causing me to be unable to understand the meaning. Could you please re-phrase it for me? Thanks.

davesrose wrote in post #17743451
I think this is where there's confusion/different terms/etc with you and Wilt. You both seem to still refuse to acknowledge there's such a thing as tonal range.

You put too much into what I DO NOT SAY!!! You seem to be the guy that takes my statement, "The sky is blue and broken by clouds" and somehow extrapolated to "Wilt says it is gonna rain tomorrow" ...NO, I did not talk about rain, I mentioned only that the sky is not unbroken blue!

I do not deny the use of gamma processing, the use of tone curves to alter the portrayal of a linear scale in a more pleasing-to-the-eye manner, or the existence of compression of a 12EV scale to black-to-white vs. a 10EV scale to same black-to-white scale of tonal values.

I have raised a question FOR DISCUSSION (post 299) and had not yet taken ANY POSITION on that discussion!!! (One might say I finally have expressed something finally, below...)

Let us discuss this, using simply a numerical 'conversion' discussion. If I have an 8 tonal level final output, just how much value do I get from a numerical storage system which has 16 tonal levels vs. a numerical storage system with 32 tonal values? What happens...

1. In the 16-value scale, tone 14 is just like 32-value tone 28...so what is the value of having tone 29?...it maps to tone 14 when converted to 16-value scale, and both map to tone 7 in the final output media.
   

2. Stated differently,
   7(8) = 14(16) = 29(32) and yet
   7(8) = 14(16) = 28(32) and yet
   7(8) = 14(16) = 27(32)

Andy, the only disagreement with everyone seems to be what exposure and reproduction means with photography. NOT THE MEANING OF SENSOR DR. HDR imaging utilizes photo merged RAWs going to 32bpc...but the definition of an HDR "image" is any format that's over 8 "stops" of tonal information: when you adjust contrast range in a RAW converter, you are tone mapping. This thread has gone round and round because there have been ancillary arguments about "compressing" sensor DR with ND filters or "increasing" with photomerging into a larger tonal range. To date, the best captured "range" of tonality with a single RAW image is up to 14 "stops" of light. Can't we all agree with that???

Again, what's making this complicated is that there is separate issues on "ranges" of contrast going on here.....in my separate but related computer graphics world, I also like to think of separate tonal ranges with image formats. I think this helps with PP as well as HDR display technologies (that have varying tonal ranges).

Irrelevant your honour!
In the matter of "Sony vs Canon sensor dynamic range", I was simply asking the witness if he understood the terms "measurable" and "noise" since he seems to repeatedly avoid the issue and discuss some other case.

AJSJones wrote in post #17743928
Irrelevant your honour!
In the matter of "Sony vs Canon sensor dynamic range", I was simply asking the witness if he understood the terms "measurable" and "noise" since he seems to repeatedly avoid the issue and discuss some other case.

Every time we get back to "dynamic range" I state something similar to my last post on the subject:

davesrose wrote in post #17743752
OK, people are still getting terms mixed up it seems (and why "measurements" in sensor DR gets more complicated)....This is the Cambridge definition of "dynamic range" as it relates to "digital photography"

"Dynamic range in photography describes the ratio between the maximum and minimum measurable light intensities (white and black, respectively)." link

A digital image is still considered the same as any other HDR medium. HDR image formats were created to have "tonal ranges" that adequately recorded and simulated light intensity. They are stored as 16bpc or 32bpc....the only reason RAWs aren't stored that way is it would take up unnecessary disc space. The linear "DR" captured medium is the "range"/"contrast"/"di​fference" between your saturation point and "acceptable" noise floor (it's "white" and "black" point). But, the image you see (whether print or monitor) has a different range of contrast. Whether it's your camera or your RAW conversion program adjusting contrast, the software is still "squeezing" 14bpc to 8bpc. Digitally captured RAW images work exactly the same as any other graphics medium:

High Dynamic Range Imaging

It seems the current *best of the best* sensor can't capture 16bpc tonal space yet. For computer imaging, graphics standards settled on 32bpc for precision as well as adequate tonal range for any light simulation. No matter how you cut it, any digital sensor is currently limited to the recorded DR of 14 "stops" of tone.

In red seems to be all the arguments/flaming going on IMO

Your honour - he's just done it again. I cannot be sure he understands the concepts of "noise" and "measurable" so I cannot discuss sensor DR, the subject of this case, with him in any profitable way.

davesrose wrote in post #17743918
To date, the best captured "range" of tonality with a single RAW image is up to 14 "stops" of light. Can't we all agree with that???

No, not if what you really mean to say (but say it wrongly nevertheless)...

" the best captured 'range' of tonality with a single RAW image is stored with up to 14 bits of capture resolution" ...which is NOT '14 stops (14EV)' of light!

Dynamic Range

Bit Precision
of Analog/Digital Converter


Contrast Ratio: 8 10 12 14 16
Dynamic Range: 256:1 1024:1 4096:1 16384:1 65536:1
F-stops: 8 10 12 14 16

AJSJones wrote in post #17743936
Your honour - he's just done it again. I cannot be sure he understands the concepts of "noise" and "measurable" so I cannot discuss sensor DR, the subject of this case, with him in any profitable way.

How is it that "acceptable" noise is different from "measured" noise from a sensor. Please explain to me how a single exposure from a current digital camera can have over 14 stops of "recorded" or "measured" or "captured" light??

davesrose wrote in post #17743954
Please explain to me how a single exposure from a current digital camera can have over 14 stops of "recorded" or "measured" or "captured" light??

See my illustration on post 320...the Exmor sensor provides 12EV of USABLE captured light, but it records even lower (unusable) levels, which are not usable due to the presence of too much noise.

And, in fact, until the A7RII came out, the Sony used 13 bits to store 12EV of dynamic range. It now has the option to use 14 bits to save the same 12EV of dynamic range, and tests have shown that to be an improvement.

That's not >14 stops of captured light.

davesrose wrote in post #17743800
It's apparent you haven't read my links on HDR

So just why do I need to fully comprehend a technique which I have no interest in using?!

"HDR is a technique used in imaging and photography to reproduce a greater dynamic range of luminosity than is possible with standard digital imaging or photographic techniques."

We discuss when/if/why not increase the INHERENT DR of the sensor which is embedded in our cameras.
We discuss just how much DR is needed in the sensor, when the DR of the output media (printer/monitor) is limited to 8-bit resolution.
So why do I need to understand a process by which I have no interest in using?!

I print color prints in the darkroom...if I print using a process using conventional chemistry in a subtractive single exposure process, why should I need to understand the implications and intricacies of the 3-color dye transfer prints?

davesrose wrote in post #17743998
That's not >14 stops of captured light.

Is anyone questioning the total DR of any scene getting to >14 stops of range in brightness?! Why is this such a continuing bone of contention for your discussion?

Wilt wrote in post #17744003
So just why do I need to fully comprehend a technique which I have no interest in using?!

Do you shoot and edit RAWs? I've linked several times now that RAW image formats are "HDR". I have tried to be polite and patient explaining and quoting sources for bit depth and tonal range, and yet you say tonality is just "levels" and that a 8bit image has the same "value" as a 14 or 16bit one....

davesrose wrote in post #17743942
Dynamic Range

Bit Precision
of Analog/Digital Converter


Contrast Ratio: 8 10 12 14 16
Dynamic Range: 256:1 1024:1 4096:1 16384:1 65536:1
F-stops: 8 10 12 14 16

Tone Mapping

"Tone mapping is a technique used in image processing and computer graphics to map one set of colors to another to approximate the appearance of high dynamic range images in a medium that has a more limited dynamic range. Print-outs, CRT or LCD monitors, and projectors all have a limited dynamic range that is inadequate to reproduce the full range of light intensities present in natural scenes. Tone mapping addresses the problem of strong contrast reduction from the scene radiance to the displayable range while preserving the image details and color appearance important to appreciate the original scene content."

HDR and Tone Mapping are both workarounds to the issue (if you believe there is an issue to to resolved) that sensors cannot capture sufficient range of brightnesses as might be encountered in real scenes. Nevertheless you seem (once again) to be applying your own definition to the acronym 'HDR', that no one seems to dispute, that 14 BITS holds enough encoding range to handle any scene that we shoot today

While workarounds are valid ways to overcome current limitations, the topic of discussion of this thread nevertheless is why/when the manufacturers will provide sensors which eliminate the need for workarounds!

I suggest that you start YOUR OWN SEPARATE THREAD to discuss the utility of these workarounds (or others).