Reading mode: Light Dark

G1 and GH2 pushed three stops.

Go to last post
richarddd said:
I believe dynamic range is the range between the brightest signal with detail and the darkest signal with detail. One component of this is noise, as noise kills detail.
Click to expand...
richarddd said:
I believe tonal range is the number of tones between those values (lots of tones with smooth gradation). These are related and both of these are important for image quality.
Click to expand...
Dynamic Range represents the ratio measured at maximum image-sensor illumination-level only. Tonal Range represents the integral (average) Dynamic Range (over the entire span of image-sensor illumination-levels). Thus, it relates more to the average of (composite) SNRs in an image ...
richarddd said:
How many stops you can pull and push seems a function of processing software as well as sensor qualities. We may be able to push and pull an image more with LR4 than PS or LR3, without any change in the sensor.
Click to expand...
I think that processors can only play tricks with what the image-sensor sends along to it. Increased black-points and tone curves that reduce their slope as tone-level reduces reduce visible image-noise by ignoring it. Fine if the (output) contrast-ratio, as printed/displayed cannot reproduce that contrast-ratio anyway - but the actual (input) range that will be utilized by the tone-curve transfer-function is reduced by doing so. NR will exact some price on spatial-resolution.

Perhaps (tone-curve as well as image-detail) characteristics both act to limit what Louis is seeking:
richarddd said:
Louis_Dobson said:
I think it DOES matter for DR assessment. Getting rid of noise is easy, just turn up NR. But that kills detail.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
richarddd said:
richarddd said:
What I mean by DR is perhaps best described as latitude - "how many stops can I pulll and push (an area of) a photo and still have a usable shot?"

Which means asking what stops it being unusable, and that is normally lack of detail after NR has been applied.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
When I need to resize a photo, and I want it done RIGHT Faststone is what I use..

Its freeware, but donations are taken.

No annoying beg screens, no nonsense, I've been using it for years.

--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Connecticut

When I was a boy, I was told that anybody could become President; I'm beginning to believe it. ~ Clarence Darrow

Don't take yourself so seriously. No one else does

In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.
Oscar Wilde
 
Detail Man said:
richarddd said:
I believe dynamic range is the range between the brightest signal with detail and the darkest signal with detail. One component of this is noise, as noise kills detail.
Click to expand...
Detail Man said:
I believe tonal range is the number of tones between those values (lots of tones with smooth gradation). These are related and both of these are important for image quality.
Click to expand...
Dynamic Range represents the ratio measured at maximum image-sensor illumination-level only. Tonal Range represents the integral (average) Dynamic Range (over the entire span of image-sensor illumination-levels). Thus, it relates more to the average of (composite) SNRs in an image ...
Click to expand...
The illustration at http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/tonal_range_01.htm is how I think of tonal range and its relation to DR. I can't tell if you're disagreeing with what I wrote or, if different, with what's implied by this image.

--
http://fruminousbandersnatch.blogspot.com/
 
herebefore said:
When I need to resize a photo, and I want it done RIGHT Faststone is what I use..

Its freeware, but donations are taken.

No annoying beg screens, no nonsense, I've been using it for years.
Click to expand...
Indeed, it does. I have FastStone on my system as well as XnView. They are both two of the best. I personally find myself preferring the XnView user-interface - but either should do a fine job of (8-bit, anyway) TIF re-sampling tasks. It would be better to have the 16-bit arithmetic that PS uses, though. I use what used to be called Artizen (2.86) to perform 16-bit Lanczos-3 re-sampling (but it does not have a B-Spline option). Sagelight resizes with 16-bit arithmetic (but has been long stuck on a mandatory and rather at this point byzantine Bilinear re-sampling process, only). :P

Don't think that the command-line only 16-bit ImageMagick has B-Spline (Lanczos and Bicubic only).
 
richarddd said:
Detail Man said:
richarddd said:
I believe dynamic range is the range between the brightest signal with detail and the darkest signal with detail. One component of this is noise, as noise kills detail.
Click to expand...
richarddd said:
I believe tonal range is the number of tones between those values (lots of tones with smooth gradation). These are related and both of these are important for image quality.
Click to expand...
Dynamic Range represents the ratio measured at maximum image-sensor illumination-level only. Tonal Range represents the integral (average) Dynamic Range (over the entire span of image-sensor illumination-levels). Thus, it relates more to the average of (composite) SNRs in an image ...
Click to expand...
The illustration at http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/tonal_range_01.htm is how I think of tonal range and its relation to DR. I can't tell if you're disagreeing with what I wrote or, if different, with what's implied by this image.
Click to expand...
The DPR page seems to me to be using the phrase "dynamic range" to relate to the actual sensor-apparatus (at maximum illumination only), and the phrase "tonal range" to refer to the bit-depth of quantization of the analog/digital conversion process (whether located on-sensor, or off-sensor):

The dynamic range and tonal range of a sensor are related. If a sensor has a dynamic range of say 1000:1 AND it has an ADC of at least 10 bit, it automatically has a wide tonal range. If a sensor with a 10 bit ADC is able to output about 1,000 different tones, the sensor must have a dynamic range of at least 1000:1 .
.

On the other hand, the phrase Tonal Range as DxOMark derives it relates to an averaging of many different individual "dynamic range" measurements , each taken at a gradated fraction of the maximum sensor illumination-level, then divided by the number of the individual samples averaged:

Tonal range is the effective number of gray levels the system can produce. This measure has to take noise into account (indeed, a very thin gray-level quantization is irrelevant if the quantization step is much smaller than noise). The standard deviation of noise can be viewed as the smallest difference between two distinguishable gray levels. The expression of the tonal range is:



From: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/About/In-depth-measurements/Measurements/Noise
 
If you use LR4 you can do exactly that, push-pull and still balance the image without it looking flat.
Steen Bay said:
Amin Sabet said:
This sort of thing, when done well as you've done here, is much more useful than the various DR charts we're shown on the review sites. It's one thing to know which sensor records more DR and another to know how much that difference matters in a practical sense.
Click to expand...
Yes, a 3 stops push of the shadows seems like a good test of how much 'usable DR' a camera has. If it can handle that with a reasonably good result, then it should be capable of handling 99% of real world scenarios. Maybe such a test would be most realistic if the pushed shadows ended up somewhere in the midtones, since it's only the shadows that sometimes needs such a huge lift. We can't normally push the whole image like Louis did here, since that would blow the highlights and upper midtones in a 'properly exposed' image.
Steen Bay said:
I did a similar test with the GH2 and Pentax K5 here: http://www.mu-43.com/f102/dynamic-range-whats-all-about-panasonic-gh2-vs-pentax-k5-comparison-11793/
Click to expand...
Fine test/comparison. The final image (with "auto tone" in LR) isn't much different from the original image though. Maybe the biggest problem here isn't so much lack of DR, but more how we can take advantage of the DR our cameras have, without making the resulting image look 'flat' and unnatural.
Click to expand...
 
Detail Man said:
The DPR page seems to me to be using the phrase "dynamic range" to relate to the actual sensor-apparatus (at maximum illumination only), and the phrase "tonal range" to refer to the bit-depth of quantization of the analog/digital conversion process (whether located on-sensor, or off-sensor):

The dynamic range and tonal range of a sensor are related. If a sensor has a dynamic range of say 1000:1 AND it has an ADC of at least 10 bit, it automatically has a wide tonal range. If a sensor with a 10 bit ADC is able to output about 1,000 different tones, the sensor must have a dynamic range of at least 1000:1 .
Click to expand...
They also use the phrase "tonal range" in reference to the (tone-level) resolution of other output devices following A/D conversion (for things that follow the "dynamic range" of photo-site output).
 
Louis can you upload the raw files to dropbox or similar and I'll import to LR4, and have a play from there and demo that the file can retrieve more blown highlight data without affecting the image, the g1 image looks very noise'y to me.
 
We're getting bogged down in, pardon the expression, detail.

What I care about in how a sensor performs includes
  • the range from brightest to darkest it can render with detail (note that noise and detail are intimately related)
  • how smooth the transition is between the lightest and darkest points
  • the ability to recover detail (usually shadow detail, as I tend to expose to the right) in software (this is a function of the software as well as the sensor)
There does not appear to be any universally agreed method to measure these.

The best method may be to compare controlled images (rather than rely on quantification). Unfortunately, when comparing sensor with different resolutions, comparison becomes even more difficult.

LR4 seems to be a definite advance in image processing. Whether it will result in a sensor that appeared worse than another now appearing better is unknown, as far as I know.
--
http://fruminousbandersnatch.blogspot.com/
 
Agreed. In the darkest non-black shadows, and the black, the G1 image is noticeably noisier at 100% .

But at normal viewing sizes much of the difference would disappear, and printing would hide the noise even more. The G1 is surprisingly good at base ISO .

No doubt the difference is greater at higher ISOs, though.
--

Bokeh is the aesthetic quality of the blur in out-of-focus areas of an image, or the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light. Bokeh is not the same as depth of field (DOF).
 
I hope that my answers to you were interesting and perhaps thought provoking.
richarddd said:
We're getting bogged down in, pardon the expression, detail.
Click to expand...
That is easy for you to say ... yet, I don't see any answers below ...
richarddd said:
What I care about in how a sensor performs includes
  • the range from brightest to darkest it can render with detail (note that noise and detail are intimately related)
  • how smooth the transition is between the lightest and darkest points
  • the ability to recover detail (usually shadow detail, as I tend to expose to the right) in software (this is a function of the software as well as the sensor)
There does not appear to be any universally agreed method to measure these.
Click to expand...
Most people don't like "details" - and the humbling realizations of how little we often understand ...
richarddd said:
The best method may be to compare controlled images (rather than rely on quantification).
Click to expand...
What is a "controlled image", then ? Please provide the "details" (without getting "bogged down")
richarddd said:
Unfortunately, when comparing sensor with different resolutions, comparison becomes even more difficult.
Click to expand...
Details return again another day to rear their ugly, un-addressed heads. Disliking them doesn't help.
richarddd said:
LR4 seems to be a definite advance in image processing. Whether it will result in a sensor that appeared worse than another now appearing better is unknown, as far as I know.
Click to expand...
Sounds fairly unlikely to me. But, who knows, maybe Adobe ... really is ... perceptual sorcery ... :P
 
It's important to present the highlight latitude from the same files. There is no way to know what kind of tone curve Lightroom is applying by default without looking at both the shadows and the highlights. For example, if the G1 RAW file has more recoverable highlights in this comparison, then the shadows comparison is not apples-to-apples.

Classic example is the E-P1 vs GF1. E-P1 RAW files are underexposed by a stop relative to the GF1 RAW files (assuming auto exposure), and then the E-P1 files are "pushed" by a stop (relative to GF1 files) during JPEG processing in order to give both files the same final brightness. Lightroom gives the E-P1 and GF1 files the same treatment as their respective in-camera JPEG processing, ie Lightroom knows that the E-P1 files are underexposed (relatively) and applies a tone curve to "push" them.

As a result, the type of test you've done here (choosing f-stop based on nominal ISO) would show noisier shadows for the E-P1 and conclude lower DR for that camera than the GF1, whereas in actuality they have the same sensor.

I don't doubt that what you've shown here is real and true. However, DR testing is a pain in the neck and fraught with pitfalls.
 
GH2 appears to have more recoverable highlights than the K-5? in LR4, have a go yourself? its just a quick play so maybe not so, but my initial check was that it recovered all of the tarmac now better than the K5?
 
While I agree, I did it that way because they were both Pannys.

The other reason i did it (and this is for DetailMan too) is because Gareth (in another thread) asked me if I had done a direct, scientific, comparison.

In fact, all this tells me is what I already knew, by the most effective method possible - I have used both cameras and I already know that the G1 files need careful massaging, whereas the GH2 has enough margin for me to do whatever I choose.

And that, in the end, is the only valid test.
Amin Sabet said:
It's important to present the highlight latitude from the same files. There is no way to know what kind of tone curve Lightroom is applying by default without looking at both the shadows and the highlights. For example, if the G1 RAW file has more recoverable highlights in this comparison, then the shadows comparison is not apples-to-apples.

Classic example is the E-P1 vs GF1. E-P1 RAW files are underexposed by a stop relative to the GF1 RAW files (assuming auto exposure), and then the E-P1 files are "pushed" by a stop (relative to GF1 files) during JPEG processing in order to give both files the same final brightness. Lightroom gives the E-P1 and GF1 files the same treatment as their respective in-camera JPEG processing, ie Lightroom knows that the E-P1 files are underexposed (relatively) and applies a tone curve to "push" them.

As a result, the type of test you've done here (choosing f-stop based on nominal ISO) would show noisier shadows for the E-P1 and conclude lower DR for that camera than the GF1, whereas in actuality they have the same sensor.

I don't doubt that what you've shown here is real and true. However, DR testing is a pain in the neck and fraught with pitfalls.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
 
Detail Man said:
What is a "controlled image", then ? Please provide the "details" (without getting "bogged down")
Click to expand...
As many factors as possible the same, other than the camera. Same position, target, lighting, lens (if possible), close to same time, on a tripod.
 
Now if we can just do the same type of test with the GH2 and G3 ...
Louis_Dobson said:
While I agree, I did it that way because they were both Pannys.

The other reason i did it (and this is for DetailMan too) is because Gareth (in another thread) asked me if I had done a direct, scientific, comparison.

In fact, all this tells me is what I already knew, by the most effective method possible - I have used both cameras and I already know that the G1 files need careful massaging, whereas the GH2 has enough margin for me to do whatever I choose.

And that, in the end, is the only valid test.
Click to expand...
 
We don't know what LR is doing, which seems to mean we have two unknowns, the sensor and the LR processing.

Image quality and need for manual processing could be due to sensor differences or differences in what LR is doing. I believe I'm just restating your post, but I want to make sure.
Amin Sabet said:
It's important to present the highlight latitude from the same files. There is no way to know what kind of tone curve Lightroom is applying by default without looking at both the shadows and the highlights. For example, if the G1 RAW file has more recoverable highlights in this comparison, then the shadows comparison is not apples-to-apples.

Classic example is the E-P1 vs GF1. E-P1 RAW files are underexposed by a stop relative to the GF1 RAW files (assuming auto exposure), and then the E-P1 files are "pushed" by a stop (relative to GF1 files) during JPEG processing in order to give both files the same final brightness. Lightroom gives the E-P1 and GF1 files the same treatment as their respective in-camera JPEG processing, ie Lightroom knows that the E-P1 files are underexposed (relatively) and applies a tone curve to "push" them.

As a result, the type of test you've done here (choosing f-stop based on nominal ISO) would show noisier shadows for the E-P1 and conclude lower DR for that camera than the GF1, whereas in actuality they have the same sensor.

I don't doubt that what you've shown here is real and true. However, DR testing is a pain in the neck and fraught with pitfalls.
Click to expand...
--
http://fruminousbandersnatch.blogspot.com/
 
Reload your original examples in lr4, zero advantage to K-5 any more, note you were a lot further away with gh2 than k-5, that was a bit biased to K5? you then sized up in lr to match, a bit unfair? anyway the K5 has no advantage with lr4, which was your conclusion anyway but now GH2 may even be edging it, because your samples are at different distances they cant be compared anyway.
Adventsam said:
If you use LR4 you can do exactly that, push-pull and still balance the image without it looking flat.
Steen Bay said:
Amin Sabet said:
This sort of thing, when done well as you've done here, is much more useful than the various DR charts we're shown on the review sites. It's one thing to know which sensor records more DR and another to know how much that difference matters in a practical sense.
Click to expand...
Yes, a 3 stops push of the shadows seems like a good test of how much 'usable DR' a camera has. If it can handle that with a reasonably good result, then it should be capable of handling 99% of real world scenarios. Maybe such a test would be most realistic if the pushed shadows ended up somewhere in the midtones, since it's only the shadows that sometimes needs such a huge lift. We can't normally push the whole image like Louis did here, since that would blow the highlights and upper midtones in a 'properly exposed' image.
Adventsam said:
I did a similar test with the GH2 and Pentax K5 here: http://www.mu-43.com/f102/dynamic-range-whats-all-about-panasonic-gh2-vs-pentax-k5-comparison-11793/
Click to expand...
Fine test/comparison. The final image (with "auto tone" in LR) isn't much different from the original image though. Maybe the biggest problem here isn't so much lack of DR, but more how we can take advantage of the DR our cameras have, without making the resulting image look 'flat' and unnatural.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The G1 has reasonable DR at base ISO. But, as Louis says, try boosting the shadows at 200 on a GI and it's not pretty. I found that GH2 at ISO 320 was similar to G1 at 100 (and about 12 months ago posted one or two examples during the short time i had both cameras). In general it's fair to say the GH2 is about 1 1/2 stops better. Will the E-M5 equal or even surpass it? We'll soon find out...

David
Louis_Dobson said:
I haven't been saying M43 has high noise and low DR, on the contrary I've just moved to it because the DR is now so good it isn't worth the hassle of carrying an FF camera!

On the other hand you have to draw a line somewhere, and my mental line is drawn at the GH2. That's good enough . I don't wish to go backwards though.

It's clearly and visibly better than the G1...
Click to expand...
 
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