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

Wilt wrote in post #17746439
but, Dave, the camera RAW file does NOT zero out the bottom two zones in the Canon exposure... the signal is still there, but it is mixed in with circuit noise!

Hey Wilt, so in the samples I posted, where Raw Digger presented the RGB rendering of my ISO 100 black frame, is that really indicative of the electronic noise that is introduced into every image, regardless of ISO level, etc? Or is there a better setting to use to show that?

If that is really the ISO 100 electronic noise, and that noise is part of every image I take, no wonder the usable raw DR is so reduced with Canon, there is no good way to clean all that out with destroying necessary detail, where with Exmor, there is much less of that and thus you can pull up shadows and still have detail.

I have never done that particular test before, so I am very ignorant of raw processors where they actually give you histograms and representations of the raw data without going through the JPG conversion.

If somebody has a Sony or Nikon and a Canon body, it would be interesting to get an ISO 100 black frame from each so we could see what RawDigger shows for each. Is there a noticeable difference or not in the noise between the two manufacturers and what does it look like?

At base ISO, the D810's last stop is solid black. It's sensor's dynamic range has filled the last "tonal" "stop".

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17746446
Perhaps I should apply to the thread title as per requests for warning..

That would make you the (thread) Title Fairy!

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17746263
Sorry for mine, but as I design solutions and write software as a career, including image manipulation using GNU or Imagemagick packages linked into our solutions, when those topics come up about softare where somebody is clearly ignorant of what is going on inside those black boxes, I have a hard time biting my tongue. I have to go back to what I was taught as a kid "when I am right, I don't have to defend it, and if I am wrong or ignorant, I have no right to defend it". .

Indeed; to all your points above.

I still have an outside bet that Dave is a highly skilled (and very patient) troll, and the joke's on all of us; such is the randomness and persistence of some of his posts.

sploo wrote in post #17746665
Indeed; to all your points above.

I still have an outside bet that Dave is a highly skilled (and very patient) troll, and the joke's on all of us; such is the randomness and persistence of some of his posts.

Still name calling and refusing to learn about tonal range I see...

For posterity here's a definition of RAW:

I hate to defend Dave, but I don't think he's a troll. He has a tendency to redefine established terms and definitions, and sidetrack arguments with slightly off topic red herrings, but not an outright troll.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17746703
I hate to defend Dave, but I don't think he's a troll. He has a tendency to redefine established terms and definitions, and sidetrack arguments with slightly off topic red herrings, but not an outright troll.

Thank you gonzogolf....I realize my "terminology" isn't "standard" for photographers....but I've found it very frustrating to be told my experience in computer graphics is separate and not equal to photography. For asinine debates on sensors, you have to also consider the file formats in which they are recorded to. A RAW is an "HDR" file format, so my experience with HDR is not a separate thing...it just gets to very heated flame wars here it appears. Hopefully if "DR" comes around again, and then examining RAWs, I don't have to go pulling up definitions of dynamic range of RAW vs jpeg and continually be questioned as a troll.

davesrose wrote in post #17746712
Thank you gonzogolf....I realize my "terminology" isn't "standard" for photographers....but I've found it very frustrating to be told my experience in computer graphics is separate and not equal to photography. For asinine debates on sensors, you have to also consider the file formats in which they are recorded to. A RAW is an "HDR" file format, so my experience with HDR is not a separate thing...it just gets to very heated flame wars here it appears. Hopefully if "DR" comes around again, and then examining RAWs, I don't have to go pulling up definitions of dynamic range of RAW vs jpeg and continually be questioned as a troll.

But when you argue that we are using the wrong definition or terminology, despite their being standard in the photo industry for decades you immediately forfeit your credibility. There is some crossover between graphics and photography but there are also differences.

It seems most the argument was that there was no difference in tonal range between RAW vs jpeg, or that DR in photography is "only sensor". The file that it's recorded to is also intertwined with the sensor dynamic range. So when we get in these needless debates on "tonality" and "reproduction"....you can't have one without the other.

It goes beyond just this thread.

I'll try to work on my "terminology" for photographers

davesrose wrote in post #17746738
I'll try to work on my "terminology" for photographers

That'd be great! Writing software code, video technology, and photography really are separate disciplines. This is a forum about still photography; as such, bringing in terms from the other disciplines can confuse things for many of us who approach this whole thing from a "layperson" standpoint.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17746759
That'd be great! Writing software code, video technology, and photography really are separate disciplines. This is a forum about still photography; as such, bringing in terms from the other disciplines can confuse things for many of us who approach this whole thing from a "layperson" standpoint.

Or from any standpoint really. An auto mechanic and a cop from San Fransisco may both be familiar with the word "tranny" but I assure you they both use it a different way.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #17746776
Or from any standpoint really. An auto mechanic and a cop from San Fransisco may both be familiar with the word "tranny" but I assure you they both use it a different way.

You mean "I rode the tranny too hard and ended up tearing out the rear end" could have two meanings?

davesrose wrote in post #17746506
At base ISO, the D810's last stop is solid black. It's sensor's dynamic range has filled the last "tonal" "stop".

No such thing. There is no solid black in any RAW file. It does not exist.

Well, it could exist, but only in a botched camera design.