Re: How far...

CFB wrote:

In article <42FAC7B2.1030405@xxxxxxxxx>,
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


CF wrote:


In article <42FA2B42.60508@xxxxxxxxx>,
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Incorrect.  This digital myth just doesn't seem to die.  Digital
cameras, especially DSLRs have higher dynamic range than film.
See:
Dynamic Range and Transfer Functions of Digital Images
and Comparison to Film
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2


"Digital camera transfer functions, like that in the Canon 1D Mark II camera, are similar to print film." That did not say higher, right?

And $9000 for a digital body is a lot to pay to get "close" to film's DR. 

A transfer function describes the sensor/film response to the intensity
of light and has nothing to do with spatial resolution.



?

I was talking about dynamic range? 

I interpreted your response differently.  By Digital camera transfer
functions being similar to print film, I mean the shape.  The statements
has nothing to do with dynamic range, only the shape of the curve.

Defining dynamic range as max signal / noise at constant resolution
one finds DSLRs and even point and shoots (at low ISO) have higher
dynamic range.  Example, see Figure 10 at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2

The print film has response to very low values but the noise dominates
the image.  This is also obvious in the images in Figure 5.


The 1D Mark II is a $4000 camera, not $9000.
Is that any better? 

Absolutely!  But if that isn't much for you, I'll gladly
sell you a new 1D Mark II for $9000.  That would be a
$5000 profit profit for me, even buying them retail.  ;-)

But if you read the tables at
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.noise
you will see many other DSLR have quite similar specifications.

Telling me the cameras would help. I saw no reference to Dynamic range. 

See Table 3, the column labeled "Possible Dynamic range"
In a 12-bit system the maximum recorded dynamic range would be
just under 12-stops



Don't confuse digital saturation (blown highlights) with
a dynamic range limitation.


Hmm. Isn't blowout caused because of a small DR? Like if you have a very contrast scene dark and light will suffer if you expose for the middle range. Like comparing a DR of 1 stop to one of 5.

http://www.nature-photography-central.com/DynamicRange.html

No it is not. Blowout is caused by incorrect metering.


Yikes. You can get blowout if you have metered correctly. 

No.  If you get blow out on a subject you wanted to capture,
means you didn't meter and expose correctly.

> Want proof? Go
outside, face the sun, half sky, half land. Meter, blowout. Adjust meter for shadows, more blowout. Adjust for sky, underexposure on land.

Now, change a cameras DR to 1. You will always get blowout. 

This would be an example of technical expertise to get the
image you want to record.  For example, use split density
filters.  The example you cite is a common one.  With a digital
camera you expose to not blow any highlight you don't want blown,
then you generally have the signal to noise to pull the image from
the shadows.  If you know the technical aspects of the camera,
and your own processing abilities, you would know what to do
to get the image, and that might include using split density
filters.  Again, if you meter correctly, and expose correctly,
you will not blow out things you want to record.

Digital has more dynamic range in the
low end than film, more than enough to compensate for saturation
in the high end.  You must learn to expose differently with
digital, just like photographers have to learn to expose slide
and print film differently.


That is just wrong.
http://www.path.unimelb.edu.au/~bernardk/tutorials/360/technical/hdri/

No it is not. But the above page is correct too (claiming film has a
high dynamic range).

My head hurts. 

Take an aspirin, get some sleep, and try and learn when you have a
fresh open mind.



The problem with the study on the above page, and
the characteristic curves from film manufacturers is that they average huge
film area in order to get the response at the low end.  Go back to:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2

Dude, you need to start referring to web pages other then your own.
"I am right because look at what I said!" That should sound silly to you. 

And because you refer to someone else's web page makes it right?
I calibrate laboratory, telescopic and spacecraft sensors for a
living.  I do have some expertise in this area.  I tried to explain
why both your cited web page and my data are right, but for different
reasons.  Film manufacturer's average large areas of film to derive
characteristics of their films.  For example grain is measured with
a 48-micron spot.  That equals 529 pixels/inch, so 35mm images would have
498 x 746 pixels.  Not much of an image.  Dynamic range is done on a
large spot too.  But resolution is done to the maximum.  Why not put them
all on equal footing, as that is what you see when you view an image?
That is what I have done.  People seem to not like thinking outside of
a box.


Yes, so you said a lot of technical gibber gabber, but what good does that do me? 

You might learn something.

I did not go to MIT but just because you did doesn't mean you are right. 

Yes, this is a correct statement.  But criticize the data or find
fault with the method, not just because I have it on a web page
and refer to it makes it wrong.  If someone else published the
exact same data, what would you say?  The difference in critical
thinking is to understand the methods and results and criticize
that (e.g. by finding some fault with methodology), and not in
attacking the author personally, like in the above statement.


Blah, blah, blah. You're not a photographer, you're a geek. 

You are entitled to you opinion.  But this is another
example of you don't like the message so attack the
messenger.


Just because you sell work does not make you a photographer. 

O wise one, what makes a photographer?

What does "out perform" mean? Are your photographs better? 

Higher spatial resolution, larger dynamic range, higher signal-to-noise,
giving better tonality.

Oh, it's a technical race. 

No race.   It is a matter of what technology can one use to
make good images?  You choose the tool for the problem, unless you
just take snapshots.   Even a painter needs technology (paints,
brushes, canvas), similarly for a pinhole camera (you need technology
to make the brush, make the pinhole, make the film), to the
latest most sophisticated digital camera.


I once saw a guy draw something really cool on a napkin. 

Yes, and he needed technology to do it, from someone
making the paper, to someone making the pencil.

I do large format
photography (with film), and I find it limiting too.  I push my
equipment to their limits trying to get the best image I can, whether
4x5, 8x10, 35mm, or digital.

Are there no limits man! DAMN YOU! 

There are many limits, from hyperfocal distances and depth of field,
to spatial resolution due to diffraction and film resolution, to
dynamic range, and on and on.

You can't fix a bad photograph in photoshop. And I'm not talking about red eye. 

I agree.  But you can make a good photograph better, ranging from
dodging and burning, to accutance enhancement, to image restoration,
to color management for printing.


I would love to take more photos, but I have a backlog of thousands
already that I want to print.  But you came into this thread with
an absolute mindset that film is best.

Can you mark where I said that? You assumed I said it. In fact you said best 3 times. Don't be a dingy. I never said film is better and I don't believe either is better then the other. 

Your attacks about digital, such as:
   "Digital probably will not reach the dynamic
    range of film in high contrast situations."

All objective data says that
is not correct.

Preference is not objective. Neither is art. 

But data are objective, if obtained in an unbiased way.


Oh, and I think it's cheesey for any one to have their pic on a web page holding a camera. And you have two. :^P 

There you go, continuing personal attacks.  Do you think by
continued personal attacks, you will undermine my credibility?
Look again, it will be yours.



You have some really great work and you know a crap load of technical information.


Thanks,
Roger
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: question 35 mm vs digital
    ... better dynamic range than film. ... Jpeg digital camera images suffer from posterization and the ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
    ... looking at the curves given on Norman Koren's webpage, ... the film was capable of recording. ... That is the actual dynamic range of the captured image ... If you set your exposure meter to 400, ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: SLR concerns, owners experiences please.
    ... No camera will fix a badly lit subject. ... No film camera, no digital camera. ... A well lit and exposed photograph will out do a badly lit, even if properly exposed photograph any day. ... There are better tests for dynamic range where the dynamic range can be expressed by quanitiative measurements rather than subjective evaluation. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
    ... In theory a 12-bit digital camera can have a 72 dB ... The graphs for film that we've looked at in this thread ... Even the Kodak curves for Tri-X don't ... 3.0, or roughly about 631:1, for 56 dB of dynamic range. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Return to film... True!
    ... differences between film and digital, and the costs, both direct and ... digitals are perfectly sharp using your system. ... examples you ever posted about dynamic range problems were simply ... Put a film camera in his hands and it would be ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)