Re: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
- From: "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:31:00 GMT
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"Mr. Strat" <rag@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <fitjnt$cei$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Wilba
<wilba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You can say for sure that none of you highlights are blown, or you
have detail in the shadows, or the compromise between the two is
optimal?
There are situations where blown highlights or lost shadow detail
are going to happen due to the limited dynamic range of digital.
Digital has moe dynamic range than film.
No, it doesn't
That is patently untrue. Digital simply has more
dynamic range, period.
- film has a more gentle way of handling highlights, where
as digital clips. Possible exception, some sensors with dual
photo-sites, but these are in the minority.
The "more gentle" way that film handles highlights, is
the same way it handles shadows too... It goes
non-linear as it approaches the limits of its range.
So what? Digital isn't linear either, at least in a light-to-JEPG
conversion.
That is *not* an advantage, it's a serious defect that
prevents use of the entire range of sensitivity in
normal photography. Of course, like any quirk, there
are times when one can take advantage of it if the
effect is desired. The problem is that it cannot be
disabled.
You can scan the film, and take advantage of that extra information, if
you wish.
Incidentally, given the higher dynamic range of an
electronic sensor (not to mention the significantly
higher sensitivity), it is relatively easy to use an
appropriate correction curve when converting from raw
sensor data to an image format to emulate the
non-linearity of film. Just as with film, it is does
*not* produce "better" results than a linear conversion
except in the few cases where one has a huge amount of
essentially worthless detail in the top 2 zones which
can be compressed into significantly less range without
detracting from the image quality.
The advantage with an electronic sensor of course is
that the curve need not always be applied, and the extra
dynamic range is usable. That choice is not available
with film.
Once you have saturated the electronic sensor, it delivers no more
information about the highlights beyond the clipping limit, Film can.
That's why I agree with those who say it has more dynamic range. How it's
processed, and how you want to present that information on a print or a
display is another matter. It may be that with 14-bit processing, and
deliberate under-exposure with digital, that the dynamic range is equalled
for practical scenes.
Cheers,
David
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
- From: Scott W
- Re: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
- From: Floyd L. Davidson
- Re: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
- References:
- Re: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
- From: David J Taylor
- Re: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
- From: Floyd L. Davidson
- Re: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
- Prev by Date: Compact Camera with RAW - what's the cheapest possible one ?
- Next by Date: Re: Canon EF-S 18-55mm poor performance at wide angle settings
- Previous by thread: Re: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
- Next by thread: Re: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
