Reading mode: Light Dark

Dynamic Range - Tests

Go to last post
OzRay said:
Jonas
Click to expand...
OzRay said:
From what I've found, Bokeh is influenced mainly by three things,
quality of lens, aperture (type/size of aperture) and the lighting
conditions ie what at the time is producing bright points of light
to give that diffuse globe/halo effect.
Click to expand...
Nice examples Ray, I really like the first one, beautiful bokeh. Oh and the pic is damn fine too.
Andy
 
Thank you, really.

Well, what can I say? I'm not an expert. As I said in a previous post I'm just a concerned hobby photographer, I have reacted on the bokeh in many DZ (Digital Zuiko) pictures as it differs (gotten worse) from what I'm used to coming from the Olympus OM film world. I hope my comments can be seen as that; from a happy amateur that wants to enter the dSLR world making good for the money spent.

picture 1: Beutiful, great picture, the colors are matching and it is all soft and gentle to the eye.

picture 2: Ok. What is bad bokeh? I tend to think of it as blurred parts of the pictures stealing the attention from the object. It can be in the foreground or the background. Here I get a little distracted by the blobs in the background. They tend to have a harsh edge witch make my eyes start moving around a little. What are the stripes (easiest spotted in the light unsharp blobs), some sort of glassing in the aviary? All in all I don't think this is good bokeh.

picture 3: It's ok. One thing is that there is a tendency to double lining and/or hard edges in the twigs in the background but that is nitpicking. (Meaning it is far from the Owl pictures ( http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=10986532 ) where the discussion started.
So, what lenses, focal lengths and apertures (if not wide open) where used?

The bokeh depending upon lens, aperture and lightning... yes, I guess it is so. Many pictures shot with modern lenses have worse bokeh than I'm used to. I wonder if they are constructed with sharpness as the main goal, for making good in resolution tests? Also different brands are known to pay more attention to this area. Minolta lenses are often equipped with circular aperture blades. This often improves the quality. I wish the DZ lenses were too. Some lenses with traditional apretures have very good bokeh. My A2 have circular blades. The bokeh is bad, sometimes very bad, never the less. There are many factors involved.
cheers,
Jonas
OzRay said:
Jonas

There was a question in another thread on Bokeh, to which I posted
some examples and sought examples in return on what constituted, in
that person's view, good Bokeh. I never received a response.

From what I've found, Bokeh is influenced mainly by three things,
quality of lens, aperture (type/size of aperture) and the lighting
conditions ie what at the time is producing bright points of light
to give that diffuse globe/halo effect.

These are three shots that give quite different Bokeh effects,
because of the nature of the background light (the second is out of
focus light through a mesh)
Click to expand...
 
Gary Eickmeier said:
What does this have to do with my post?
Click to expand...
Nothing. This thread goes in two directions, both very interestening (to me at least) and I hope we can get to some conclusions in both areas. One thing I have learned (Minolta A2) is that I have to underexposure, never let to much light hit the tiny sensor. With E-1 it is less critical but how and to what degree and how can one use this in practise? The latter is more interestening than shooting gretag cc cards (but I gonna post some underexposured color cards a little later here).
 
Jonas B said:
Jonas B said:
From what I've found, Bokeh is influenced mainly by three things,
quality of lens, aperture (type/size of aperture) and the lighting
conditions ie what at the time is producing bright points of light
to give that diffuse globe/halo effect.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Jonas,

To give you the best of both worlds, here is a test of Bokeh that I did with an OM 100/2.8 wide open at a distance that would work for head shots, using the E-1.



--
Bob Ross
http://www.pbase.com/rossrtx
 
Gary Eickmeier said:
So what would the DR of the Canons and the Nikons be? Is this a digital thing, or a sensor thing? How much does it vary among cameras?
Click to expand...
I can only comment directly on the middle question: dynamic range depends a lot on sensor type, and amongst sensors of the same type, it should be roughly proportional to photosite size (area), and hence roughly proportional to sensor size for a given resolution (pixel count). The 4/3 format cameras so far have an advantage from their FFT CCD sensor type, balanced against a disadvantage in photosite size, since the so called "APS-C" format sensors can have photosites of between 20% and 50% greater area for similar resolution. The balance seems to favor 4/3 FFT CCD so far.

The Full Frame Transfer CCD type use in the E-1 and all digital backs for medium and large fomat cameras generally has the best dynamic range, because photosites of a given size can hold more electrons (measure more light befor highlihgs blow out) than the other common sensor types. Obviously, increased size also increase the number of electrons that can be held. In each case, this increases highlight head-room, so increases dynamic range "at the top"; it has no effect on "speed" or low light ability.

In practice, the FFT CCDs used in high end digital backs have the best dynamic range of anything around so far, but they also have bigger photosites than the 4/3 sensors. (Note that they do not appear to have very good high ISO performance! At least, none is rated at more than ISO 800.)

Going down the line, conventional interline CCD is generally second best for highlight headroom, and CMOS is in general the worst. However, the FillFactory CMOS sensors used in recent Kodak DSLRs have an unusual design giving very large electron well capacity, and so have very good dynamic range. (This virtue is often lost in the obsession with high ISO shooting, as if the need for high shutter speeds is dominant in high resolution photography.) Fuji's SuperCCD seems to do better than convenional interline CCD, and their new "SR"(?) technology promises to greatly improve dynamic range: let us see how well the S3 performs. (Their DR expansion technique could probably be adapted to other sensor types.)

It seems that with the E-1, the FFT CCD advantage outweighs the disadvantage of its slightly smaller photosites, except that possibly the Fuji S2 SuperCCD sensor is as good as the E-1 for DR, or even better according to some. It will be interesting to see how this holds up as photosites get smaller ll around, as with the E-300 and 20D.

On one hand, a 4/3 format sensor (18x13.5mm) will always have photosites about 25-30% smaller in area than an "EF-S format" sensor (22.5x15mm) of similar resolution.

On the other hand, comparing high end interline and FFT sensors from Kodak, FFT CCD seems to have a 50% advantage in highlight headroom (not to mention about a 50% advantage in noise levels). So 4/3 format FFT CCDs could be able to contnue to outdo the dynamic range of conventional interline CCDs in the so called "APS-C" formats, and outdo conventional CMOS, since that 50% is at least as great as the size advantage of "EF-S" or "DX" formats.
 
Jonas

As I said, Bokeh is a result of many factors. Here's a good read if you haven't come across these already:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-04-04-04.shtml

You'll see from the articles, that Bokeh can manifest itself in many ways depending on the factors already stated.

In the pictures I posted, you commented that the Bokeh in the second picture was not good. Closer consideration of what I described the circumstances around the second picture, would have given you the clue that what you are getting is effectively a form of interference, because of the mesh of the cage - no camera lens could give you anything but.

It's clear that for many, Bokeh (good or bad) is a matter of taste. That's fair enough, one man's meat, is another man's poison. But I'd still like to see examples of what is considered 'good' Bokeh, from those who seek such. If it's that difficult to find, then can it really exist?

Cheers

Ray
Jonas B said:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=10986532 ) where the discussion started.
So, what lenses, focal lengths and apertures (if not wide open)
where used?
The bokeh depending upon lens, aperture and lightning... yes, I
guess it is so. Many pictures shot with modern lenses have worse
bokeh than I'm used to. I wonder if they are constructed with
sharpness as the main goal, for making good in resolution tests?
Also different brands are known to pay more attention to this area.
Minolta lenses are often equipped with circular aperture blades.
This often improves the quality. I wish the DZ lenses were too.
Some lenses with traditional apretures have very good bokeh. My A2
have circular blades. The bokeh is bad, sometimes very bad, never
the less. There are many factors involved.
cheers,
Jonas
OzRay said:
Jonas

There was a question in another thread on Bokeh, to which I posted
some examples and sought examples in return on what constituted, in
that person's view, good Bokeh. I never received a response.

From what I've found, Bokeh is influenced mainly by three things,
quality of lens, aperture (type/size of aperture) and the lighting
conditions ie what at the time is producing bright points of light
to give that diffuse globe/halo effect.

These are three shots that give quite different Bokeh effects,
because of the nature of the background light (the second is out of
focus light through a mesh)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
There are no limits, only challenges - me (unless someone else said it first).

http://www.rkp.com.au/PhotoGallery/
 
andy mclean said:
Hi Gary, it has nothing to do with your post. I wanted to respond
to Jonas because I felt bad about my earlier post directed at him
which I regretted almost as soon as it was sent. I cannot answer
your questions I'm afraid and I haven't had the opportunity to
check the DR of nikons or canons in the same way I have the E1. I
have compared the image output, which probably has as much to do
with the lenses and in-camera algorithms as anything else.
Personally, I prefer the Oly look, quite how it is really achieved
I do not know. Although others have commented on the lower DR of
cannons I am in no position to judge. A post in the earlier thread
did point out that one of the nikon DSLRs is comparable to the E1.
Interpretation of histograms is not that simple either... I think
that they may be a great aid once you have experience in using the
particular one from your camera. I am new to all this stuff, but
Oly histograms look different to N&C of the same scene, same
camera settings in very limited, unscientific comparisons with
friends. None of us were keen to swap gear with anyone else and
the better photo depended on the photographer rather than the
camera. It is a matter of personal preference and experience for
the most part. I need more experience with the E1, but wouldn't
swap it for a d70 or d10. Nor would my friends appear to want to
swap theirs (weatherproofing aside).
Best wishes-
Andy
Click to expand...
OK, thanks. It just looked like you were responding under the wrong post, and "trailering" my post.

This dynamic range business is very important. In addition to the questions in my post, I am wondering why the Canons wouldn't be superior in this regard, with their very low noise at any ISO. Also wonder why we can't electronically squeeze more dynamic range into an image - something like audio compression - you know, the DBX stuff? But maybe image sensors don't work that way...

Gary Eickmeier
 
BJL said:
Gary Eickmeier said:
So what would the DR of the Canons and the Nikons be? Is this a digital thing, or a sensor thing? How much does it vary among cameras?
Click to expand...
I can only comment directly on the middle question: dynamic range
depends a lot on sensor type, and amongst sensors of the same type,
it should be roughly proportional to photosite size (area), and
hence roughly proportional to sensor size for a given resolution
(pixel count). The 4/3 format cameras so far have an advantage from
their FFT CCD sensor type, balanced against a disadvantage in
photosite size, since the so called "APS-C" format sensors can have
photosites of between 20% and 50% greater area for similar
resolution. The balance seems to favor 4/3 FFT CCD so far.

The Full Frame Transfer CCD type use in the E-1 and all digital
backs for medium and large fomat cameras generally has the best
dynamic range, because photosites of a given size can hold more
electrons (measure more light befor highlihgs blow out) than the
other common sensor types. Obviously, increased size also increase
the number of electrons that can be held. In each case, this
increases highlight head-room, so increases dynamic range "at the
top"; it has no effect on "speed" or low light ability.

In practice, the FFT CCDs used in high end digital backs have the
best dynamic range of anything around so far, but they also have
bigger photosites than the 4/3 sensors. (Note that they do not
appear to have very good high ISO performance! At least, none is
rated at more than ISO 800.)

Going down the line, conventional interline CCD is generally second
best for highlight headroom, and CMOS is in general the worst.
However, the FillFactory CMOS sensors used in recent Kodak DSLRs
have an unusual design giving very large electron well capacity,
and so have very good dynamic range. (This virtue is often lost in
the obsession with high ISO shooting, as if the need for high
shutter speeds is dominant in high resolution photography.) Fuji's
SuperCCD seems to do better than convenional interline CCD, and
their new "SR"(?) technology promises to greatly improve dynamic
range: let us see how well the S3 performs. (Their DR expansion
technique could probably be adapted to other sensor types.)

It seems that with the E-1, the FFT CCD advantage outweighs the
disadvantage of its slightly smaller photosites, except that
possibly the Fuji S2 SuperCCD sensor is as good as the E-1 for DR,
or even better according to some. It will be interesting to see how
this holds up as photosites get smaller ll around, as with the
E-300 and 20D.

On one hand, a 4/3 format sensor (18x13.5mm) will always have
photosites about 25-30% smaller in area than an "EF-S format"
sensor (22.5x15mm) of similar resolution.

On the other hand, comparing high end interline and FFT sensors
from Kodak, FFT CCD seems to have a 50% advantage in highlight
headroom (not to mention about a 50% advantage in noise levels). So
4/3 format FFT CCDs could be able to contnue to outdo the dynamic
range of conventional interline CCDs in the so called "APS-C"
formats, and outdo conventional CMOS, since that 50% is at least as
great as the size advantage of "EF-S" or "DX" formats.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your considerable reply. I don't know as much about sensors as you do, but I'm just trying to think of a way to "compress" the image information so that we might expand it on processing, as much as our printer will allow. The only trick I know offhand is that if you bracket your exposure around the middle values, you will have three images which could be sandwiched together for greater dynamic range. The overexposed one would see further into the shadows, the underexposed one would ensure highlights had detail. Problem, of course, is you can't do this with anything that moves - must take multiple exposures.

Or do you? Is it possible to shoot in RAW and change the ISO upon processing? Obviously, you must select some exposure when taking the picture, but perhaps the RAW system lets you change ISO - I don't know.

Obviously, we can print multiple layers at different brightnesses, but that wouldn't get us any farther than the 7 or 8 stops that you fellows have already measured, right?

Just thinking out loud.

Gary Eickmeier
 
Gary Eickmeier said:
Gary Eickmeier said:
Or do you? Is it possible to shoot in RAW and change the ISO upon
Click to expand...
processing? Obviously, you must select some exposure when taking
the picture, but perhaps the RAW system lets you change ISO - I
don't know.

Obviously, we can print multiple layers at different brightnesses,
but that wouldn't get us any farther than the 7 or 8 stops that you
fellows have already measured, right?

Just thinking out loud.

Gary Eickmeier
Click to expand...
Gary,

Yes, you can take a RAW image file and make multiple versions at different EVs and then combine them in something like Picture Window Pro's Image Stacker. The rub to the DR question is whether the printer you use has as much DR as the camera/processed image.
--
Bob Ross
http://www.pbase.com/rossrtx
 
Aha...

Maybe closer consideration of a lot of things should give us all new conclusions to think about when falling asleep. I shall read those articles at Luminuos Landscapes, if not from anything else so from curiosity. Picture 2 still have a less than good bokeh. It might be called interference but my guess still is that something with the lense causes the blurred circles to have a sharp edge.

Isn't picture 1 an example of good bokeh? The blurred background is there and helps to show the real object, the bird. In my last post I wrote:

"What is bad bokeh? I tend to think of it as blurred parts of the pictures stealing the attention from the object."
It still would be interestening to see the exifs.

regards,

Jonas
OzRay said:
As I said, Bokeh is a result of many factors. Here's a good read if
you haven't come across these already:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-04-04-04.shtml

You'll see from the articles, that Bokeh can manifest itself in
many ways depending on the factors already stated.

In the pictures I posted, you commented that the Bokeh in the
second picture was not good. Closer consideration of what I
described the circumstances around the second picture, would have
given you the clue that what you are getting is effectively a form
of interference, because of the mesh of the cage - no camera lens
could give you anything but.

It's clear that for many, Bokeh (good or bad) is a matter of taste.
That's fair enough, one man's meat, is another man's poison. But
I'd still like to see examples of what is considered 'good' Bokeh,
from those who seek such. If it's that difficult to find, then can
it really exist?

Cheers

Ray
Jonas B said:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=10986532 ) where the discussion started.
So, what lenses, focal lengths and apertures (if not wide open)
where used?
The bokeh depending upon lens, aperture and lightning... yes, I
guess it is so. Many pictures shot with modern lenses have worse
bokeh than I'm used to. I wonder if they are constructed with
sharpness as the main goal, for making good in resolution tests?
Also different brands are known to pay more attention to this area.
Minolta lenses are often equipped with circular aperture blades.
This often improves the quality. I wish the DZ lenses were too.
Some lenses with traditional apretures have very good bokeh. My A2
have circular blades. The bokeh is bad, sometimes very bad, never
the less. There are many factors involved.
cheers,
Jonas
OzRay said:
Jonas

There was a question in another thread on Bokeh, to which I posted
some examples and sought examples in return on what constituted, in
that person's view, good Bokeh. I never received a response.

From what I've found, Bokeh is influenced mainly by three things,
quality of lens, aperture (type/size of aperture) and the lighting
conditions ie what at the time is producing bright points of light
to give that diffuse globe/halo effect.

These are three shots that give quite different Bokeh effects,
because of the nature of the background light (the second is out of
focus light through a mesh)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
There are no limits, only challenges - me (unless someone else said
it first).

http://www.rkp.com.au/PhotoGallery/
Click to expand...
--
Jonas B
 
Thank you.

Yes, this is more like what I'm used to. The best of two worlds... yes, I guess you are right there. Then in the long term it will be the DZ lenses that count I guess. I hope the new upcoming fast primes will be less focused on resolution and more like the old lenses.

regards,

Jonas
Ross said:
Jonas,
To give you the best of both worlds, here is a test of Bokeh that I
did with an OM 100/2.8 wide open at a distance that would work for
head shots, using the E-1.
Click to expand...
 
I believe there was an earlier thread that pointed at a silmilar IR camera test which did include the E-1 ... and the E-1 was measured to be very slightly better that the E-300.

This test does put more emphasis on, and draws its primary conclusions from the ""high image quality" column, in which the E-series don't do so well. Does anyone know how "image quality" is defined???
--
cheerios from 'the rock'
Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland
 
I have done a very similar test on the Nikon D2X and D70, and the Fuji S3 Pro (which has a particularly interesting sensor designed specifically to increase dynamic range). I did my tests to 1/3rd stop precision.

Judgments about where highlight detail ends are fairly easy, but it's not as easy on the shadow end where detail gets progressively drowned in noise. Your judgment about where the noise is too high, and detail is no longer photographically acceptable, is partly a subjective one. Different people might reach different conclusions. I was reasonably generous in my standards on that. Many people might have ruled the shadows too noisy before I did. That disclaimer noted, here's what I found:

Shooting JPEG:

D70 = about 7 and 2/3rd stops
D2X = about 8 and 1/3rd stops
Fuji S3 Pro = about 9 and 1/3rd stops

Shooting RAW (and Adobe Camera Raw gave the highest dynamic range in all three cases because of its excellent highlight recovery function):

D70 = about 8 and 1/3rd stops
D2X = about 9 stops
Fuji S3 Pro = about 10 and 1/3rd stops

I haven't tested my E-1 yet (didn't own it when I did the above tests), but I might at some points (although it's kind of a tedious test). My guess -- and it's just a guess -- is it will be about the same as the D70/D2X. I think the E-1 is a very nice camera, and I like mine, but I don't think it has any magical properties that other DSLRs don't have.
Gary Eickmeier said:
So what would the DR of the Canons and the Nikons be? Is this a
digital thing, or a sensor thing? How much does it vary among
cameras?

Also, does all this mean that we will get usable, if not great
images, if our metering hits anywhere within 3 or 4 stops of the
ideal?

How many stops do histograms cover?

Gary Eickmeier
Click to expand...
 
Ozray's dynamic range test doesn't seem right to me. He is taking a single textured sheet and exposing it up and down the scale. But a subject with a single color or shade is not the problem here. When we are trying to calculate exposure, we are confronted with varying tonalities in the image, not a single one. We need to know how much we can go over and under and still keep detail in both the highlights and the shadows.

Perhaps a better test would be a very light textured surface alongside a very dark textured surface. You then go up and down the scale and see how many stops will hold detail in BOTH surfaces that is usable.

Gary Eickmeier
 
'Imaging resource' test DR of dSLRs:

Dynamic Range (in f-stops) vs Image Quality
(At camera's minimum ISO)
Camera Model Allowed noise, f-stops

Fujifilm S3 Pro (Via Adobe Camera Raw 2) 12.1 11.7 10.7 9.0
Fujifilm S3 Pro -- 9.9 9.4 7.94
Nikon D50 10.7 9.93 8.70 7.36
Canon EOS 20D 10.3 9.66 8.85 7.29
Canon Digital Rebel XT 10.3 9.51 8.61 7.11
Olympus EVOLT 10.8 9.26 8.48 7.07
Canon Digital Rebel 10.1 9.11 8.47 6.97
Pentax *istDs 10.2 10 8.87 6.9
Nikon D2x -- 8.93 7.75 6.43
Nikon D70S 9.84 8.69 7.46 5.85
Nikon D70 9.81 8.76 7.58 5.84

source: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/S3/S3PA13.HTM
 
Actually, I think using the same target and shooting many exposures of it up and down the scale should work fine.

The sensor simply responds to the intensity of light that reaches it; a dark gray patch is the same as a middle gray patch that's been underexposed, as far as the sensor knows. So a wide range of tones in one exposure can be exactly mimicked by shooting one tone at a number of varying exposures. I've turned this question around in my head many times and can't see how it could be false.

The one wrinkle in that methodology, in terms of measuring camera dynamic range, is that doing many different exposures will usually entail using a range of shutter speeds, and the dark noise produced by a sensor gets worse as shutter speed, or integration time in sensor-speak, grows longer. But I haven't noticed that effect in my attempts to devise good dynamic range tests, for whatever that's worth. I try to avoid shutter speeds longer than 1/15th of a second.
Gary Eickmeier said:
Ozray's dynamic range test doesn't seem right to me. He is taking a
single textured sheet and exposing it up and down the scale. But a
subject with a single color or shade is not the problem here. When
we are trying to calculate exposure, we are confronted with varying
tonalities in the image, not a single one. We need to know how much
we can go over and under and still keep detail in both the
highlights and the shadows.

Perhaps a better test would be a very light textured surface
alongside a very dark textured surface. You then go up and down the
scale and see how many stops will hold detail in BOTH surfaces that
is usable.

Gary Eickmeier
Click to expand...
 
tom sugnet said:
'Imaging resource' test DR of dSLRs:
Click to expand...
It seems as if IR just ran out of camera JPEGs through the imaging software.

Firstly, JPEGs are so poor to run these tests with considering that the camera performs all sorts of processing to the JPEGs to make them look nicer to the casual user. These can limit the actual DR you recieve in the finished file.

Also, all cameras use different default settings for contrast, etc. A higher contrast setting blows the highlights quicker. The E300 has a particularly high default contrast setting.

Finally, I find that RAW gives a whole lot more highlight headroom and shadow depth than any JPEG when processed in the right software.

My point is; I don't think this test is at all conclusive.

David

--



http://downward-spiral.co.uk
http://downward-spiral.co.uk/deargreenplace
 
The cameras meter records as 18% any single tone that is placed in front of the lens (or thereabouts, as there can be slight variations from camaera to camera). I could have used white, grey, black or any variation in between.

I used the paper towel because of the texture, which enabled me to clearly see when the DR had been exceeded (ie the ability to still record detail). I found that when I used a sheet of white paper, it was much harder to delineate where things ended.

The ideal test target would be a calibrated grey scale card that ranged from pure black to pure white in clearly defined steps. I had no way of getting one, so I followed Michael Reichmann's guide using a single colour.

Cheers

Ray

--
http://www.australianimage.com.au
 
For practical purposes and in terms of seeing differences in images due to DR all "good" DSLR's are about the same???????Maybe the S3 is a little better.This is a question.
 
I only did the test at a time when many were saying that digital only had the equivalent DR of transparency film (around 5 stops). The tests indicated that the E1's DR is more in the realms of colour negative (8-10 stops or thereabouts).

It didn't really have a lot to do with comparisons with other cameras; other than to refute the 5 stop claim of digital sensors. I had no way of testing other cameras (other than my KM A2, which had a much lower DR), but I could test the E1 and it was clear that it had more than 5 stops DR.

Cheers

Ray

--
http://www.australianimage.com.au
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top