Film versus DSLR dynamic range

Started Jul 24, 2007 | Discussions thread
Jay Turberville Forum Pro • Posts: 12,917
Re: I guess...

...it is your homework, Dave, the one in order here.

You simply have shown nothing , except conceptually confining
dynamic range to bit depth, which, as you already know, it is
innacurate.

Actually, until someone starts storing gamma adjusted raw values, it is a perfectly valid representation. Digital sensors are linear in their response and all of them (with the exception of the Fujifilm sensor perhaps) store linear raw values. So that analysis is pretty accurate. It may be off a bit due to things like flair polluting very dark areas though. My tests show a very linear response until you reach those darkest and noisiest tones.

What I find funny here is the following:

1. You complain about "IMATEST testers" not being connected to reality.
2. You state that DR (in "real world") has nothing to do with
IMATEST.

The irony is that Dave and I tend to agree and I happen to think Imatest is a fine tool and use it to come to conclusions that right now seem at odds with yours.

3. I come and show you ACTUAL images, from the "real world" I
suppose, and NOT A SINGLE Imatest chart.

Yeah, but so what? That candle wasn't calibrated to anything. We don't know the brightness values there.

4. You dismiss the evidence with a concept and a computation...

Probably because it is darned poor evidence.

Let me know if you accept.

Hey, maybe I'm wrong and there are 11 stops of usable DR if I can measure it using schemes similar to Clark. I'll be happy to send you raw files of step wedges and you can develope them and show us how there are usable tones beyond 9 or so stops. Every time I go there, the noise gets pretty intense.

-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow