Dynamic Range -- what it is, what it's good for, and how much you 'need'

Started Oct 17, 2011 | Discussions thread
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,223
Like?
The few, the proud -- the 'entertainers'
In reply to boggis the cat, Oct 19, 2011

boggis the cat wrote:

Are you really saying that Joe needs to "explain" to us what DR is?

...on who is included in "us". For people who think:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=39499178

Compared to APS-C models you don't get 2 or 3 stops difference unless you are using DxO's bogus "DR" ratings.

There is a difference, but it's not large.

when, in fact, the difference is as huge as DxOMark claims:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=38379069

From your OP:

I'd like to begin with a rather stark example of what 13.7 stops of DR (D7000) offers over 11.2 stops of DR (5D2):

So that's 2.5 stops of DR.

Yep. See that link just above? You know, the same one that was the first link given in my OP? That demonstrates the DR differential.

(Ignoring the larger sensor size and thus "total light" DR advantage of the 5D II. This implies a roughly 4 stop DR advantage to the D7000 sensor technology, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't, boggis. It's 2.5 stops, just like DxOMark says it is, just like the pics show it is.

Maybe you should address that, while you're at it.)

I've addressed it multiple times in this thread,for example:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=39618035

and even spelled it out to your face:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=39616280

No, it isn't "all about total light", but total light, like DR, is an important consideration.

Please demonstrate where those 2.5 stops are present by shifting the exposure of that D7000 example you used (before using "relight" or similar tonal modifications), or some other examples where the raw file is available.

Then anyone interested can also assess those same raw files and decide whether the implied DxO DR difference is credible.

Ask Mikael Risedal. You know, the guy who did the test I cited. I mean, seriously -- here I am, the "great advocate of FF" linking to a demonstration of how an APS-C camera whomps all over a FF camera, and you act as though I've come here to use the same example to show how much better APS-C is than 4/3.

Get a clue, boggis.

well, yeah, it might help if "they" knew what DR is, how it is measured, and how it applies to photography, so that they would be more able to understand what is "bogus" and what is not and show a little restraint with their self-harming posts.

On the other hand, many other people (in the same thread linked above), seem to have a more competent understanding of what DR is, how large the disparity can be between specific systems, when it matters, and when it doesn't.

Like "brightcolors", for example?

Do you mean the thread started by the "D7000 vs 5Dmk2 real shadow noise (DR) test, Mikael Risedal" post, or the "Utility of exposure bracketing" thread that you turned into a clown-fest?

I fully encourage anyone interested to review both threads.

Kinda hard for them to "review both threads" without the links, eh? Anyway, here's the link to my entry in Mikael Risedal's thread ("5dmk2 vs Nikon d7000 and shadow noise (DR)"):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=38367463

and here's my response to your "Utility of exposure bracketing" post (not thread):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=39499742

where I challenge you to support your claim that DxOMark's DR measurements are "bogus", where it was painfully obvious, once again, who the clown was.

Or possibly you are asserting that we don't understand what you claim DR is (which appears to be "DxO DR"), as you appear to not follow any argument for practicality in any of these theoretical number-massaging exercises.

My "claim" of what DR is exactly coincides with what DxOMark, Wikipedia, Cambridge in Color, and Uwe Steinmueller "claim" it to be.

In any case, obtain raw files and post your "proof". Then other interested parties can review this and maybe even draw a rational and useful discussion from your typical baiting post.

I'm not here to serve you boggis -- I'm here to debunk your specious claim that DxOMark's DR measurements are "bogus", and I've successfully done that, in spades, right from the OP.

That fact that you don't have the cognitive capacity to understand is another matter all together. I'm not trying to convince you -- that's hopeless -- I'm explaining to other interested parties (since the thread title is rather clear about the subject matter) who might swallow your BS without a correct understanding of what DR is and how it's measures.

And, from the responses from many in this thread, it seems that you are one of the few who remains clueless.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
MathNew
You.New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow