20 stop dynamic range - what digital system can match?

Apparently, the new forum software is not as good at duplicate prevention.

--

gollywop

You'll have to leave the objective technical facts to greater minds than mine. I've read about half the posts in this thread, and I think the details miss the point, which is the big picture.

I used to shoot film, and until 3 years ago was a film snob. I liked the look of film better than digital shots I had seen. Granted, I had been away from photography for a while, but I had digital cameras to document scenes and never figured it to make any really pleasing pictures.

Only after I discovered post processing and saw what others could do with it, did I get enthusiastic about digital. I think, in most cases, film will look better than unprocessed digital. The ability to process photos in the computer make digital much better looking than film.

Once again this is purely my subjective opinion based on looking at photos that I and other non-proffesionals actually generate.

If you are just stating that film is better than digital, then fine, enjoy!

If you are asking what digicam can match the image quality you posted, than many modern cameras can of many brands.

If you are asking what digicam has the best DR and resolution, it is Nikon D800e.

If you are asking about the best skin tones, it would be older lower resolution Canon DSLR's (5D, etc.). Out of modern models, Canon 5D Mark III would be the one to mention.

Your request of no digital image processing is as meaningless as asking to shoot film without chemical processing.

Unlike with film, whose DR is limited by 14 to 17 stops at best in B&W, a 20-stop DR is easily achievable by exposure bracketing and HDR on many digital cameras. You also can get around 14 stops in color in a single shot with Nikon D800e.


To summarize, if you want to go digital with the best sensor DR, get Nikon D800e.

Victor Engel said:

Victor Engel wrote:

Victor Engel said:

Jack Hogan wrote:

Victor Engel said:

Victor Engel wrote:

Iso 3200 is the problem. On the 10D that is an extended Iso setting. It is simply iso 1600 shifted one stop. So iso3200 should NOT be the same as 1600. One stop is clipped.

Click to expand...

Is exposure the same?

Click to expand...

MU

Click to expand...

PDR makes no effort to verify actual ISO values (like DxO does), but shows what it would be for those camera settings: ISO in this context might well be called brightness B1, B2, B3, B3a etc. So perhaps Canon is 'cooking' the raw data or perhaps the file(s) used were corrupted. bclaff makes his measurements on data/files that users send in: the more the sets sent in the easier to route out outliers, like those for instance that perhaps have noise reduction accidentally turned on. For many years and until a few weeks ago he only collected data for Nikon cameras and only added other brands when users requested it and sent in relative data. If you send him a note with an appropriate set of 10D files I am sure he will verify the data and correct it if needed.

Oh, it's all subjective -- and a lot of fun. I'm trying to figure out how to use my XZ-1 as a monochrome viewfinder for color film in my old resuscitated Nikon FG -- shot one roll today, and sent it out for hi-res scans, which I'll put into Photoshop and desaturate, and then edit contrast, etc. The 'digital darkroom' is a blast! So much that you can do, as you pointed out.

Why not just get a new D600? Which is a VERY good 24MP camera? Thing is, I LIKE my old FG. I LIKE manual focusing, and having to figure out DOF since there's no live preview. As full-frames go, it's small and light -- and it is simple and easy to use. Glad that I'm an amateur, and don't have to shoot digital since I have no deadline requirements. Luxury!

What a nice thread, thanks for starting this Dentite

there's a lot of smart people here.

No question, film still has its advantages. With the digital darkroom, which I also am fond of, digital can produce better photos with average skills. To do better with film, requires great skills, unless you scan and then edit on computer, which I haven't tried.

I was never that good with a real darkroom and film. I enjoyed it, though. I enjoy digital more and I think I do better with it for two reasons. First, edits on the computer allow for cost free and quick correction of mistakes. Second, and more important, the screen on the camera allows me to see the larger mistakes I make in capturing the image, while I am in front of the same subject with the same light without any cost or significant time.

Maybe I will try film again if I become good enough to know exactly what I will get from camera and darkroom without a lot of repeating. I doubt it though. I am a complete digital convert. I just don't think the OP will get far with no processing. Better to stick with film, if you don't want to process, IMO.

GodSpeaks said:

GodSpeaks wrote:
As a previous medium format film shooter, I can tell you that the Nikon D800 is better than MF film (actually, I think even the D600/Sony A850 (24MP) is too). As a previous medium format digital shooter I can tell you that the D800 beats MF in almost every way, except perhaps total megapixels (ie: 80MP backs).

Click to expand...

I shot medium format film too (Rollei TLR, Hasselblad, and Linhof 6x9) - I'd also agree that a camera like the Nikon D800 with good lenses can match even 6x7 or 6x9 mf film. The tone curve of film is different though.

I haven't measured the DR or anything, but subjectively I've seen plenty of examples of photographs from the A900, D3x and A800 that I thought were taken on MF film until I was told otherwise.

Whether you will like shooting with a DSLR type of camera is a whole different matter. It takes time to get used to - but give it that time.

It should be pointed out that the recent wide-DR sensors provide quite some more DR than what the cameras actually process these days "without blowing highlights and keeping the shadow details and skin tones alive WITHOUT alterations or adjustments in Photoshop" as the OP wishes. Which is likely due to in-camera computer processing limitations and due to the already discussed issues of the heavy DR compression needed to fit within the displayable DR without killing contrast. State-of-the-art: Lightroom 4 chews up considerably more DR from a wide-DR raw file than what the in-camera JPG engine spits out; it does require some alterations, but the set of controls is reasonably intuitive and gives much more power than one had with film.

I believe there are three main things in this new generation of raw processing which need to make their way into cameras:

1. processing engine that can handle wide DR without requiring 32-bitdepth images that most good HDR software uses
2. automated highlights recovery, to suppress false colours appearing in partially blown areas
3. good processing defaults.

Regarding the third, the OP should look into the Apical tech known as ADL, HTP, DRO and perhaps others, perhaps look into DPR and Imaging Resource studies of them. They are not perfect, for instance they seem to share an issue with underexposing raw data, taking a bit of the input DR away. But they attempt to do what the OP wants. Notice their names remain the same, but the implementations are gradually improving.

In particular I'd mention the ADL implementations in D4 and D800(e), which haven't been thoroughly examined around here AFAIK. According to DPR, the D800 processes 11.5 EV at extra high, which is quite some more than the previous generation. The D4 knows a higher level extra high 2, but the DPR review isn't here yet.

_sem_ said:

_sem_ wrote:

It should be pointed out that the recent wide-DR sensors provide quite some more DR than what the cameras actually process these days "without blowing highlights and keeping the shadow details and skin tones alive WITHOUT alterations or adjustments in Photoshop" as the OP wishes. Which is likely due to in-camera computer processing limitations and due to the already discussed issues of the heavy DR compression needed to fit within the displayable DR without killing contrast. State-of-the-art: Lightroom 4 chews up considerably more DR from a wide-DR raw file than what the in-camera JPG engine spits out; it does require some alterations, but the set of controls is reasonably intuitive and gives much more power than one had with film.

Click to expand...

With Canon cameras that allow custom profiles, it is possible to make a custom profile to do this, extending DR beyond neutral, which has more DR than standard. This is discussed at length on video forums, since it is more important for video than stills. See this clip for a sample.

http://vimeo.com/25774367

_sem_ said:

I believe there are three main things in this new generation of raw processing which need to make their way into cameras:

1. processing engine that can handle wide DR without requiring 32-bitdepth images that most good HDR software uses
2. automated highlights recovery, to suppress false colours appearing in partially blown area

1. good processing defaults.

Regarding the third, the OP should look into the Apical tech known as ADL, HTP, DRO and perhaps others, perhaps look into DPR and Imaging Resource studies of them. They are not perfect, for instance they seem to share an issue with underexposing raw data, taking a bit of the input DR away. But they attempt to do what the OP wants. Notice their names remain the same, but the implementations are gradually improving.

Click to expand...

sorry about messing up the quote. I blame the wysiwyg editor. I was going to interject something after your second bullet, but apparently, I can't do that. False colors appearing in partially blown areas are not an issue of processing not using the available data. They are the result of the data clipping, leaving the data in an undefined state. The only possible recovery is through extrapolation. This is where negative film has an advantage over digital. Instead of having a hard limit, film has an asymptote.

_sem_ said:

In particular I'd mention the ADL implementations in D4 and D800(e), which haven't been thoroughly examined around here AFAIK. According to DPR, the D800 processes 11.5 EV at extra high, which is quite some more than the previous generation. The D4 knows a higher level extra high 2, but the DPR review isn't here yet.

Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by extra high here. In any case, low noise in the shadows allows the photographer to decrease exposure preventing highlights from blowing. As long as shadows are noisy, that is not possible without compromise.

Victor Engel said:

Victor Engel wrote:

With Canon cameras that allow custom profiles, it is possible to make a custom profile to do this, extending DR beyond neutral, which has more DR than standard. This is discussed at length on video forums, since it is more important for video than stills. See this clip for a sample.

http://vimeo.com/25774367

Click to expand...

Nikon also has a thing called Picture Controls, but this was traditionally way more restricted regarding DR than the sensor. By setting lowest contrast, which in principle should help, One would get a dull image, but either the highlights or the shadows or both would still be clipped. But as mentioned there seems to be an improvement indicated in the D800 review.

AFAIK the Canon sensors have a bit less DR; the DPR review of the 5DIII shows a bit over 10 stops with HTP on.

Victor Engel said:

sorry about messing up the quote. I blame the wysiwyg editor. I was going to interject something after your second bullet, but apparently, I can't do that.

Click to expand...

Have the same problem often... ANYBODY???

Victor Engel said:

False colors appearing in partially blown areas are not an issue of processing not using the available data. They are the result of the data clipping, leaving the data in an undefined state. The only possible recovery is through extrapolation. This is where negative film has an advantage over digital. Instead of having a hard limit, film has an asymptote.

Click to expand...

Agreed, and I've got this extrapolation in mind. In theory it is completely unreliable, but in practice this lets one stop obsessing with blowing the highlights, as long as the photographer considers them unimportant, like it was with film. Lets you shoot high-key again with little pp hassle; in turn, you can get cleaner shadows when needed.

Victor Engel said:

Victor Engel said:

I don't know what you mean by extra high here. In any case, low noise in the shadows allows the photographer to decrease exposure preventing highlights from blowing. As long as shadows are noisy, that is not possible without compromise.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Quoting problems again ;(

"Extra high" used to be the highest available ADL level (they're discrete). Opposed to the name, it wasn't really extra, was still relatively mild shadows lifting, compared to what one can do in LR, DxO, RT etc. EH2 seems to go a bit further.

Certainly, noise is the issue here. But with the wide-DR sensors, at base ISO and with careful exposure and with the available degree of lifting, ADL works almost reasonably well for a full-auto thing. Except that the mentioned underexposure thing makes you underexpose raw data for about a stop if you watch the right edge of the RGB histogram - compared to what you can do by shooting raw exposing carefully without ADL and processing in a suitable raw converter or via pseudo-HDR.

The question was, about what digital camera can produce a comparable image without any postprocessing... which presumably means, working with a straight-out-of-camera picture.

So we must compare it against a film approach which produces a finished image straight-out-of-camera and hands-free (without any careful and time-consuming chemical processing, selection of the right grade of printing paper, enlarger filtration etc). A Polaroid transfer print, in other words (grin). Not many stops of exposure range in that.

A digital capture requires processing just as a film latent image requires processing. An exposure is made to suit this later processing - if in order to get the desired result we need to underexpose a bit and THEN push, or overexpose and THEN pull, or whatever... then we can properly regard all that as within the overall technique. Whatever it takes.

The specific technique differs when we are talking about negative film, reversal film, in mono or colour, or various kinds of digital. And the same capture can be transformed and interpreted and presented in many different ways, using any of these mediums - except Polaroid.

If we are only going to artificially limit ourselves to digital processing that happens in the camera, and not in a computer, then this is to deliberately skew the comparison IMO and also to participate in a common myth that all digital processing outside the camera is in some way uniquely inauthentic... as if there were no such thing as "darkroom trickery". With digital some kinds of simpler processing CAN indeed happen in the camera (adjustably to a small degree) and that is a convenience - but definitely not the whole story.

RP