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

gonzogolf wrote in post #17746809
You mean "I rode the tranny too hard and ended up tearing out the rear end" could have two meanings?

"LOL" is an over-used and often misused phrase.....but after reading that I actually did laugh out loud!
Hilarious!

John Sheehy wrote in post #17746948
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.

Don't get sucked in, walk away quickly...

davesrose wrote in post #17746726
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.

Oooops. I think a lot of the argument resulted from different use or understanding of terms.

Who actually said there was no difference in (maximum possible) tonal range between raw and jpeg? (I must have missed that)

Absolutely nobody has said DR in photography is "only sensor". Only sensor DR is sensor DR. The thread started as "i see posts all the time bad-mouthing Canon's dynamic range. I also see posts that imply that it can be fixed, even on current models if they just would." Someone who brings up other DR is going off-topic.

Sensor DR can be measured without worrying about how it is recorded, as long, obviously, as there are enought bits in the recording system to show that the relevant noise floor has been reached. What happens to those raw data once they have been recorded is no longer relevant to sensor DR. It is clearly very relevant to the DR of the image as it goes through processing, manipulation and presentation, but not the initial topic of the thread.

John Sheehy wrote in post #17746948
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.

Come on John, there has to be a finite, but admittedly very very small, probability that during any exposure that zero photons arrive in at least one single sensel, and that zero electrons are produced by noise, both in the sensel and downstream as far as the ADC, which then results in the ADC producing a count of 0. This has to be true in any situation where the noise is truly random.

Alan

BigAl007 wrote in post #17747135
Come on John, there has to be a finite, but admittedly very very small, probability that during any exposure that zero photons arrive in at least one single sensel, and that zero electrons are produced by noise, both in the sensel and downstream as far as the ADC, which then results in the ADC producing a count of 0. This has to be true in any situation where the noise is truly random.

Alan

Yeah it happened once - but it got lost in the noise

A RAW file from a medium format, i don't think it has that wide DR, but it has some of over exposure and underexposure areas that both needed to be balanced, let's say how good it can be done with a MF file.

https://www.dropbox.co​m …c2pcm9q/A002755​0.3FR?dl=0

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.

I do think it is unlikely that he is a troll (I did say outside bet); the problem is that it would be a feasible explanation for his posts. That in itself is a shame.

It's the combination of repeatedly missing the point, reading something into a post that wasn't written (and arguing the toss over that new topic), injecting random and somewhat off topic subjects, telling everyone we should all be friends, then rinsing and repeating ad-infinitum, that just flags up a warning as a potential under-bridge dweller.

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.

The problem is that, I am a computer graphics guy (and by the sounds of it so is TeamSpeed). It's not just a case that you use computer graphics terminology in a photography context, you use terminology in ways that doesn't make sense in the computer graphics world either.

I'd assume it was just a repeated bizarre use of terminology, but the supporting narrative of some of your posts seems to back up the impression of "just doesn't really get it", as opposed to "gets it but uses terminology in odd ways".

There are also a couple of guys on this thread who, from many posts over the years, have shown themselves to have significant background knowledge in sensor technology. I don't know their trades, but I do have confidence they know what they're talking about. They too have expressed confusion and disagreement with your statements.

It could be that you're the only sane guy in a room full of lunatics, but Occam's Razor would likely be pertinent. It's also far from the first thread in which this has happened (I'm thinking of the train wreck that was the DOF thread).

If you were a computer guy who knows about bit depth, then I don't know why you've continued to refuse to acknowledge that a 14bpc processor "tone-maps" a different contrast range to 8bpc. It needs more then one "algorithm" and is separate then a "jpeg conversion algorithm" (whatever that means). The problem is also you. I've already acknowledged that I should work on my terminology, but I'm not the only one at fault.

AJSJones wrote in post #17747120
Who actually said there was no difference in (maximum possible) tonal range between raw and jpeg? (I must have missed that)

At this date, that "range" started in about page 5 on to 31 of this thread I'll let it continue to just noise

AJSJones wrote in post #17747120
Who actually said there was no difference in (maximum possible) tonal range between raw and jpeg? (I must have missed that)

davesrose wrote in post #17747806
At this date, that "range" started in about page 5 on to 31 of this thread I'll let it continue to just noise

Dave, he asked you who actually said it. . He did not ask where about it started.

Are you able to give a direct answer to his direct question? . Are you able to quote someone's post in which they actually said that there was no difference in (maximum possible) tonal range between raw and jpeg? . If not, then I would tend to believe that no one ever did say it.

davesrose wrote in post #17746726
It seems most the argument was that there was no difference in tonal range between RAW vs jpeg

AJSJones wrote in post #17747120
Who actually said there was no difference in (maximum possible) tonal range between raw and jpeg? (I must have missed that)

davesrose wrote in post #17747806
At this date, that "range" started in about page 5 on to 31 of this thread I'll let it continue to just noise

I'm sorry Dave ( couldn't resist)

If you are interpreting the discussion from pp 5-31 as containing an assertion that "there is no difference in (maximum possible) tonal range between raw and jpeg", and then an argument about it, that would go a long way to explaining why you have been seen as confused all along.

AJSJones wrote in post #17747831
I'm sorry Dave ( couldn't resist)

If you are interpreting the discussion from pp 5-31 as containing an assertion that "there is no difference in (maximum possible) tonal range between raw and jpeg", and then an argument about it, that would go a long way to explaining why you have been seen as confused all along.

Well that "range" of miscommunication was posts like sploo's that asserted 1bit was the same "contrast" as 8bit or 16bit...and then subsequent flame wars of "tonal levels", and how "white" is the same "value" in a 8bit, 16bit, or 32bit system I'm not going to try quoting every instance of where that topic came up in this thread. In relation to "range" of file format and "range" of sensor, I think it's been well established by now that Sony sensors can fill a full 14 "stops" of tone at base ISO now God help anyone trying to get that info in this thread. If people want to see when Canon can get sensors that go to 14 "stops" or when Sony sensors can go to 16 "stops", that's a valid question. But asking why Canon's RAW file has noise in the last "tonal" "stop" is showing ignorance on file systems. Since actual "black" is when there's not "noise" and white is "maximum saturation", I'll leave it for others if they want to debate how low in noise sensors can get. For 14 stops base ISO, Canon still needs to improve sensor DR. For 16 stops base ISO, Sony needs to improve sensor DR.

The problem with this thread was chicken and egg arguments about sensor vs file system. Are we still going to get lost in the noise (that's even below the value of "black") or *consider* stepping into the light (that's the value of "white")??

.
Ok, I'm going to go back to the beginning of this thread and try to address the issue the OP brought up by providing an example of an image in which I think that the dynamic range was not sufficient to capture the scene the way I wanted to.

WilsonFlyer wrote in post #17709279
i see posts all the time bad-mouthing Canon's dynamic range. I also see posts that imply that it can be fixed, even on current models if they just would.

Sensor thing or firmware thing? What's the deal? You would think they would not want to lose this war. Why are they or do they seem to be so nonchalant about the whole thing?

gonzogolf wrote in post #17712224
I understand but nobody ever shows a real world scene for their examples, only manufactured scenes deliberately underexposed.

Ok, then........here is an example that is very "real world". . And it was not underexposed; in fact, I had to over-expose the highlights in order to try to minimize the noise.

Someone saw an (iPhoto) edited version of this on my website, and wanted to order a 48" by 32" print. . It would be for a smallish room in which the print would be viewed from a distance of 4 to 10 feet.

Here is an unedited version of the photo:

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17747897
.
Ok, I'm going to go back to the beginning of this thread and try to address the issue the OP brought up by providing an example of an image in which I think that the dynamic range was not sufficient to capture the scene the way I wanted to.

Ok, then........here is an example that is very "real world". . And it was not underexposed; in fact, I had to over-expose the highlights in order to try to minimize the noise.

Someone saw an (iPhoto) edited version of this on my website, and wanted to order a 48" by 32" print. . It would be for a smallish room in which the print would be viewed from a distance of 4 to 10 feet.

Here is an unedited version of the photo:

Hosted photo: posted by Tom Reichner in
./showthread.php?p=177​47897&i=i2607689
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Unfortunately, I couldn't offer such a print, as the image quality is absolutely horrendous. . I showed the image to the potential buyer on my computer - zoomed in to what it would be like if blown up to 48" - and they were sooooooo disappointed. . The flame in the tree is blown out; there was actually a lot - and I mean A LOT - of detail in the burning portion of the tree. But if I exposed for that then the dark areas and mid-tones would have REALLY bad noise grain. . So I pushed the exposure a bit so that I would just get really bad noise instead of REALLY bad noise. . I knew this would be a problem when I was out there shooting it, but didn't know what I could possibly do to get really awesome IQ at every level. . All the while I kept thinking about the "superior dynamic range" that Sony is known for, and was wondering; if I had one of those "7" cameras (you know, the Sony mirrorless ones that are all the rage) would the IQ be better with regards to the ability to capture all of the detail in the flame and still get really smooth noise-free dark areas?

I don't really know how well a Sony would have done here. . But as it is, the image I shot with my Canon is really un-usable when it comes to decent sized prints. . BTW, I did shoot a few hundred frames at various exposure values and ISO settings. . Unfortunately blending (HDR) isn't really possible because the flying sparks are different in every frame, as is the smoke above the tree.

Basically what I learned is that if one is shooting super-bright burning things in the middle of a pitch-black night, and some of those things are dancing and flying in the wind, and you want/need to capture the scene with one exposure and get awesome IQ, basically SOOC ..... my Canon 1D4 simply isn't up to the task. . It didn't do the job I gave it to do. . It couldn't do the job I gave it to do. . Would the Sony have done the job? . Would I have been able to sell the print if I took this shot with that Sony mirrorless camera? . I don't know. . All I know is that Canon didn't, and I lost a sale.

Fortunately, most of what I shoot/make a living at shooting does not involve a need to capture a high dynamic range.

That really has more to do with ISO and noise than DR. Hard to say if another camera would have done a better job, but most likely not. Its also a nearly 6 year old camera, so comparing it to cameras just released in the last year or so is silly. Do you compare the tech in a 6 year old computer to new ones and talk about how bad the old computer performs compared to the new one? Probably not, just common sense that a device with current technology will usually perform better. Its actually amazing that some 6-10 year old Canon's can still compete with brand new tech at all. Just wait for the next crop of Canons next year (1Dxii, 5Dx, 6Dii) its going to be a good year.

Thanks for posting an example Tom, and getting back on topic I think the "simple" answer is that no matter what your process, a Nikon/Sony won't exhibit noise at base ISO (because it's sensor noise floor is lower then 14bpc). Because a Nikon photographer looking at a RAW converter is never going to see noise (at base ISO), Nikon systems can have an easier workflow. Most examples, and my own experience with the D810, is situations where in post, you're trying to bring up shadows. There are instances in photography where lighting is hard to try to get optimal exposure, and not having noise in your RAW viewer can be helpful. But as far as recovering highlights, since the Nikon still gets to 14bpc, there's not much difference in highlight recovery (it's still limited to a "white point" that's a value of 65536). So in order to take a picture that has a direct light, you need higher dynamic range. 14 "stops" isn't enough in a lot of situations. Also, I see your photo is extremely challenging for any camera: ISO 6400 really kills dynamic range.