I even posted a extreme macro shot of the rear lcd down to pixel level, also a fast raw viewer highlight and shadow clipping image. But the discussion is about the 6 stop variation DR test results not the .3 stop margin of error both ACR and Fast Raw Viewer have built in
these measurements are 2 stops different. and there is a discussion happening how accurate is the camera histogram ( in my testing .3 stop), a resitor has as little as 1% tolerance yet these figures are 25 % out. the question remains WHY !Is that image one that contains 6 additional stops of DR? How are we to tell?the histograms are near identical from a pushed gfx100 raw file vers jpeg, im wanting to see the extra 6 stops of DR demonstrated. to be honest id take the d30 jpeg over the raw gfx 100 file till someone can clearly show 6 stops difference when it starts behind from the startI've just found that motorbike picture in the review and I don't think we published the Raw file. Are you trying to assess DR from JPEGs?
Because, as I say, most standard JPEGs use tone curves to convey about 8.5 or so EV of dynamic range, discarding everything beyond that.
Trying to assess DR by pushing JPEGs is like smashing sets of crockery and trying to guess how maleable the clay they were made from was, before they were fired.
Richard - DPReview.com
What is your Raw converter of choice doing to the shadows? How would we know?
Presenting out-of-context screengrabs isn't a convincing way to disprove all existing theory and testing, especially if your reference point is a JPEG, which can't act as a meaningful point of comparison. Even more so when the first images you posted strongly suggested the GFX was capable of showing more dynamic range than the D30 (less noisy darkest tones).
If you download the Raw from this scene:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-gfx-50r-review/5#sbs
The brightest tones are at or very close to clipping and the darkest are around 13-14 stops below that. (ie: Raw values around 2 in the shadows and approaching 16813 in the highlights).
You can process that to have nothing rendered as quite black, and get a histogram with everything neatly showing in the middle of the graph, but that doesn't tell us anything. It certainly doesn't prove or disprove how much DR was captured.
Richard - DPReview.com
I note these are figures for the 30D, not the D30.these measurements are 2 stops different. and there is a discussion happening how accurate is the camera histogram ( in my testing .3 stop), a resitor has as little as 1% tolerance yet these figures are 25 % out. the question remains WHY !
Two back of camera luminance histograms with different WB settings in the camera. No other setting were changed.
i know that i was questioning the difference of cameras in general of that era as dxo didnt do a test of the d30. ive just tested my a7iv and couldnt squezzzzz any more the than 9.5 stops on a neutral gray card from clipping to clipping.I note these are figures for the 30D, not the D30.these measurements are 2 stops different. and there is a discussion happening how accurate is the camera histogram ( in my testing .3 stop), a resitor has as little as 1% tolerance yet these figures are 25 % out. the question remains WHY !
you can set sony zebras to near identically match Fast raw viewers.
i have put up a discussion and no images/evidence have been posted in response.
interesting finding but. so recovering highlights from a jpeg test image in ACR is way more effective than from PS itself ,in fact i was very supprised at the difference, it wasnt even close.
can you post an incamera rgb histogram instead like on the sony. i will test now.Two back of camera luminance histograms with different WB settings in the camera. No other setting were changed.
Notice how much closer to the right side the lower histogram is.
In order to prove that the in-camera histogram doesn't represent the raw histogram, all that's necessary to prove is that WB settings in the camera affect the in-camera histogram, since the two shots above can't possibly represent the raw file data, unless someone is going to claim that the raw data (not the metadata) is affected by in-camera WB settings. Is anyone going to assert that?
im saying that the incamera histogram/zebras (sony set to 109 + #) can represent an acurate exposure based on the raw file opened in either ACR or fast raw viewer. a raw file has no colours, the sensor just reads voltages/charge. what does a black and white sensor conversion histogram representTwo back of camera luminance histograms with different WB settings in the camera. No other setting were changed.
Notice how much closer to the right side the lower histogram is.
In order to prove that the in-camera histogram doesn't represent the raw histogram, all that's necessary to prove is that WB settings in the camera affect the in-camera histogram, since the two shots above can't possibly represent the raw file data, unless someone is going to claim that the raw data (not the metadata) is affected by in-camera WB settings. Is anyone going to assert that?
Those are in-camera histograms, from the live histogram on a GFX 100 II. The RGB ones are also different from each other when you change the WB. But I wanted to keep it simple. If the luminance histograms are different, the RGB ones can't be the same.can you post an incamera rgb histogram instead like on the sony. i will test now.Two back of camera luminance histograms with different WB settings in the camera. No other setting were changed.
Notice how much closer to the right side the lower histogram is.
In order to prove that the in-camera histogram doesn't represent the raw histogram, all that's necessary to prove is that WB settings in the camera affect the in-camera histogram, since the two shots above can't possibly represent the raw file data, unless someone is going to claim that the raw data (not the metadata) is affected by in-camera WB settings. Is anyone going to assert that?
blog.kasson.com
I don't know what you're trying to describe here. If you're talking about the point at which a grey card appears as white and black in JPEGs with different exposures, then you're characterising your JPEG engine, not measuring dynamic range.
That's not the same as proving that histograms are based on Raw output. You can get the histograms on a Sony to more closely match the Raw clipping point by using the HLG profile, but this is a fortuitous 'hack,' rather than an expected consequence. It's still prone to the WB problem that's been highlighted elsewhere. But that's still a tangential point.
You have posted a series of images with no adequate explanation of what they're showing or, really, what you think you're seeing in them. As I say, the overexposed Kodak charts appear to show the Fujifilm has more dynamic range (less noise at the darkest tone), but there's nothing to show us deep shadows.
At the point you're testing highlight recovery algorithms, you're not really talking about sensor DR anymore.
all good Jim, im just going to come to the conclusions that DR measurements are far from the truth from any site. so i just tested my xz1 in my studio and even though dxo says 10.4 and the d30 from DPR 8, after pushing the jpeg file from the d30 and the raw file from the xz1 the d30 is so far in front its not even a competition. even my a7iv is not even close to 15 stops. i get 1+1=2 and 2+2=4 but DR 1+1=7Those are in-camera histograms, from the live histogram on a GFX 100 II. The RGB ones are also different from each other when you change the WB. But I wanted to keep it simple. If the luminance histograms are different, the RGB ones can't be the same.can you post an incamera rgb histogram instead like on the sony. i will test now.Two back of camera luminance histograms with different WB settings in the camera. No other setting were changed.
Notice how much closer to the right side the lower histogram is.
In order to prove that the in-camera histogram doesn't represent the raw histogram, all that's necessary to prove is that WB settings in the camera affect the in-camera histogram, since the two shots above can't possibly represent the raw file data, unless someone is going to claim that the raw data (not the metadata) is affected by in-camera WB settings. Is anyone going to assert that?
i over/under exposed the raw file til i couldnt recover anymore information in ACR ,and gauging from the shutter speed in combination with the aperture 9.5 stops measured from the exposure settings.
will have a play with that file now
i had the k100d same sensor , and the colours were great.
Your evidence was a side-by-side screen grab of two OOC JPEGs of very different subjects in different lighting (one quite high contrast, one low contrast), with indeterminate in-camera settings (noise reduction in particular). Both JPEGs pushed by you to lift the very different shadowed areas. Instead of attending to the patient efforts expended by Richard to educate you on the limitations of your "evidence", your response is that you've offered "evidence" and nobody else has...i know that i was questioning the difference of cameras in general of that era as dxo didnt do a test of the d30. ive just tested my a7iv and couldnt squezzzzz any more the than 9.5 stops on a neutral gray card from clipping to clipping.I note these are figures for the 30D, not the D30.these measurements are 2 stops different. and there is a discussion happening how accurate is the camera histogram ( in my testing .3 stop), a resitor has as little as 1% tolerance yet these figures are 25 % out. the question remains WHY !
you can set sony zebras to near identically match Fast raw viewers.
i have put up a discussion and no images/evidence have been posted in response.
This is a different topic probably more suited for the Retouching Forum, but please share your test JPEG and results. I am not aware of any insurmountable advantage that ACR has over PS's internal tone controls when ACR is used as a filter in PS (or to otherwise directly edit a JPEG). The real difference is that ACR gives you one targeted tool (the Highlights slider) vs PS giving you multiple generic tools and dozens of different ways to go about taming highlights. Regardless, it's still just the same RGB (or Lab, CMYK, etc.) data (clipped or nearly-so) that you're constrained by.
i used both jpegs from DPR at iso 100 not imaging resourseYour evidence was a side-by-side screen grab of two OOC JPEGs of very different subjects in different lighting (one quite high contrast, one low contrast), with indeterminate in-camera settings (noise reduction in particular). Both JPEGs pushed by you to lift the very different shadowed areas. Instead of attending to the patient efforts expended by Richard to educate you on the limitations of your "evidence", your response is that you've offered "evidence" and nobody else has...i know that i was questioning the difference of cameras in general of that era as dxo didnt do a test of the d30. ive just tested my a7iv and couldnt squezzzzz any more the than 9.5 stops on a neutral gray card from clipping to clipping.I note these are figures for the 30D, not the D30.these measurements are 2 stops different. and there is a discussion happening how accurate is the camera histogram ( in my testing .3 stop), a resitor has as little as 1% tolerance yet these figures are 25 % out. the question remains WHY !
you can set sony zebras to near identically match Fast raw viewers.
i have put up a discussion and no images/evidence have been posted in response.
...well, here's some counter-evidence for you, selected and prepared and presented the same way you did but at least utilizing considerably more similar scenic and lighting conditions:
Left=GFX100 OOC JPEG (from Imaging Resource); Right= D30 OOC JPEG (from the DPR review)
The D30 shot is ISO 100. Guess what ISO the GFX100 shot is? (Hint: it has something to do with your supposed missing six-stop difference...).
[Apologies to Richard Butler for adopting Donald's flawed methodology for DR comparisons!]
This is a different topic probably more suited for the Retouching Forum, but please share your test JPEG and results. I am not aware of any insurmountable advantage that ACR has over PS's internal tone controls when ACR is used as a filter in PS (or to otherwise directly edit a JPEG). The real difference is that ACR gives you one targeted tool (the Highlights slider) vs PS giving you multiple generic tools and dozens of different ways to go about taming highlights. Regardless, it's still just the same RGB (or Lab, CMYK, etc.) data (clipped or nearly-so) that you're constrained by.
just revisited some images from my k100d, WOW............ how good it the shadow lifting even skin tone in dark shadows can be lifted with perfect skin tones, im impressed and i only shot jpeg back then.
so i took my over exposed Jpeg image into ACR and pulled back the exposure and detail was recovered. in PS i did the same with exposure and it just made the image hazy grey.Your evidence was a side-by-side screen grab of two OOC JPEGs of very different subjects in different lighting (one quite high contrast, one low contrast), with indeterminate in-camera settings (noise reduction in particular). Both JPEGs pushed by you to lift the very different shadowed areas. Instead of attending to the patient efforts expended by Richard to educate you on the limitations of your "evidence", your response is that you've offered "evidence" and nobody else has...i know that i was questioning the difference of cameras in general of that era as dxo didnt do a test of the d30. ive just tested my a7iv and couldnt squezzzzz any more the than 9.5 stops on a neutral gray card from clipping to clipping.I note these are figures for the 30D, not the D30.these measurements are 2 stops different. and there is a discussion happening how accurate is the camera histogram ( in my testing .3 stop), a resitor has as little as 1% tolerance yet these figures are 25 % out. the question remains WHY !
you can set sony zebras to near identically match Fast raw viewers.
i have put up a discussion and no images/evidence have been posted in response.
...well, here's some counter-evidence for you, selected and prepared and presented the same way you did but at least utilizing considerably more similar scenic and lighting conditions:
Left=GFX100 OOC JPEG (from Imaging Resource); Right= D30 OOC JPEG (from the DPR review)
The D30 shot is ISO 100. Guess what ISO the GFX100 shot is? (Hint: it has something to do with your supposed missing six-stop difference...).
[Apologies to Richard Butler for adopting Donald's flawed methodology for DR comparisons!]
This is a different topic probably more suited for the Retouching Forum, but please share your test JPEG and results. I am not aware of any insurmountable advantage that ACR has over PS's internal tone controls when ACR is used as a filter in PS (or to otherwise directly edit a JPEG). The real difference is that ACR gives you one targeted tool (the Highlights slider) vs PS giving you multiple generic tools and dozens of different ways to go about taming highlights. Regardless, it's still just the same RGB (or Lab, CMYK, etc.) data (clipped or nearly-so) that you're constrained by.
I never liked exposure slider in PS and i know why now 
You know what you have done when reading the RGB values in that red box area?your red box is showing 19 19 19 its not below at all.First people have been trying to teach you the difference between the histogram you are showing as it is not a raw histogram and is of the processed raw data that has been placed with in a color space.the histograms are near identical from a pushed gfx100 raw file vers jpeg, im wanting to see the extra 6 stops of DR demonstrated. to be honest id take the d30 jpeg over the raw gfx 100 file till someone can clearly show 6 stops difference when it starts behind from the startI've just found that motorbike picture in the review and I don't think we published the Raw file. Are you trying to assess DR from JPEGs?explain these 2 black level comparrisions when pushed, the d30 clearly out performs the values in the shadows. the smaller pixels have crushed the information.The phrase “not even wrong” is a critique in scientific and philosophical discussions. It means that a claim or idea is so ill-posed, incoherent, or misframed that it can’t even be evaluated; it fails to meet the minimum standard of being falsifiable. It was popularized by physicist Wolfgang Pauli.I have downladed and pushed the shadows of test images from the canon d30 and the results were nothing short of amazing.
pushed 4 stops
D30
GFx 100
A statement is “not even wrong” if:
I think Richard has explained the main issues.
- It’s vague, non-testable, or internally inconsistent
- It doesn’t make concrete predictions that could be checked
- It misuses terminology in ways that render it meaningless in context
Because, as I say, most standard JPEGs use tone curves to convey about 8.5 or so EV of dynamic range, discarding everything beyond that.
Trying to assess DR by pushing JPEGs is like smashing sets of crockery and trying to guess how maleable the clay they were made from was, before they were fired.
Richard - DPReview.com
I know of at least 7 threads started over various platform that you have not learned the difference, until you fully understand what those extra stops of DR mean and how that relates to what is captured in the raw file I feel it will be the very same runaround many of us have dealt with the past 10 years and trying to tell you what that extra DR is and how it relates to how we process that data into the color space you are trying to display that data in.
In one final attempt to show you where this extra DR comes into play
In the red box the image data falls well below the DR that can be displayed in the color space in the tonal ranges that are held within the standard tonal range.
When we are discussing the DR of the sensor and how much is recorded, we are talking about the range of the lightest to the darkest data being collected with floor to the lowest signal determined by a noise level.
We are then compressing that range of DR into the color space we are going to display that data in. That red patch was well below the 0,0,0 color space with its placement in the raw data. We then compress that to how we want to display that tonal range of the raw data
Not this again, without understanding what is shown above how can you make such a statement again?the d30 image lowest black is 12 12 12
the myth that the incamera histogram doesnt equal the raw , i disproved that 2 years ago. i just shot an image with the histogram just clipping the blacks and the reading was 0 1 1
what is black? is it the lowest signal a sensor can record? or is it what we classify black as within the tonal range of a printed image?
And yet I have an image that is a high contrast image with a DR of 11 stops and lens veiling glare is not a problem
You also presented two very different shots involving a motorcycle and a light post for your black level "evidence" and, in so doing, claimed:i used both jpegs from DPR at iso 100 not imaging resourseYour evidence was a side-by-side screen grab of two OOC JPEGs of very different subjects in different lighting (one quite high contrast, one low contrast), with indeterminate in-camera settings (noise reduction in particular). Both JPEGs pushed by you to lift the very different shadowed areas. Instead of attending to the patient efforts expended by Richard to educate you on the limitations of your "evidence", your response is that you've offered "evidence" and nobody else has...i know that i was questioning the difference of cameras in general of that era as dxo didnt do a test of the d30. ive just tested my a7iv and couldnt squezzzzz any more the than 9.5 stops on a neutral gray card from clipping to clipping.I note these are figures for the 30D, not the D30.these measurements are 2 stops different. and there is a discussion happening how accurate is the camera histogram ( in my testing .3 stop), a resitor has as little as 1% tolerance yet these figures are 25 % out. the question remains WHY !
you can set sony zebras to near identically match Fast raw viewers.
i have put up a discussion and no images/evidence have been posted in response.
...well, here's some counter-evidence for you, selected and prepared and presented the same way you did but at least utilizing considerably more similar scenic and lighting conditions:
Left=GFX100 OOC JPEG (from Imaging Resource); Right= D30 OOC JPEG (from the DPR review)
The D30 shot is ISO 100. Guess what ISO the GFX100 shot is? (Hint: it has something to do with your supposed missing six-stop difference...).
[Apologies to Richard Butler for adopting Donald's flawed methodology for DR comparisons!]
This is a different topic probably more suited for the Retouching Forum, but please share your test JPEG and results. I am not aware of any insurmountable advantage that ACR has over PS's internal tone controls when ACR is used as a filter in PS (or to otherwise directly edit a JPEG). The real difference is that ACR gives you one targeted tool (the Highlights slider) vs PS giving you multiple generic tools and dozens of different ways to go about taming highlights. Regardless, it's still just the same RGB (or Lab, CMYK, etc.) data (clipped or nearly-so) that you're constrained by.
Yes, the Exposure slider in ACR does not operate in the same way as the Exposure slider in PS. The PS slider is a brute force one and the ACR slider tapers the adjustment as it approaches clipping.so i took my over exposed Jpeg image into ACR and pulled back the exposure and detail was recovered. in PS i did the same with exposure and it just made the image hazy grey.Your evidence was a side-by-side screen grab of two OOC JPEGs of very different subjects in different lighting (one quite high contrast, one low contrast), with indeterminate in-camera settings (noise reduction in particular). Both JPEGs pushed by you to lift the very different shadowed areas. Instead of attending to the patient efforts expended by Richard to educate you on the limitations of your "evidence", your response is that you've offered "evidence" and nobody else has...i know that i was questioning the difference of cameras in general of that era as dxo didnt do a test of the d30. ive just tested my a7iv and couldnt squezzzzz any more the than 9.5 stops on a neutral gray card from clipping to clipping.I note these are figures for the 30D, not the D30.these measurements are 2 stops different. and there is a discussion happening how accurate is the camera histogram ( in my testing .3 stop), a resitor has as little as 1% tolerance yet these figures are 25 % out. the question remains WHY !
you can set sony zebras to near identically match Fast raw viewers.
i have put up a discussion and no images/evidence have been posted in response.
...well, here's some counter-evidence for you, selected and prepared and presented the same way you did but at least utilizing considerably more similar scenic and lighting conditions:
Left=GFX100 OOC JPEG (from Imaging Resource); Right= D30 OOC JPEG (from the DPR review)
The D30 shot is ISO 100. Guess what ISO the GFX100 shot is? (Hint: it has something to do with your supposed missing six-stop difference...).
[Apologies to Richard Butler for adopting Donald's flawed methodology for DR comparisons!]
This is a different topic probably more suited for the Retouching Forum, but please share your test JPEG and results. I am not aware of any insurmountable advantage that ACR has over PS's internal tone controls when ACR is used as a filter in PS (or to otherwise directly edit a JPEG). The real difference is that ACR gives you one targeted tool (the Highlights slider) vs PS giving you multiple generic tools and dozens of different ways to go about taming highlights. Regardless, it's still just the same RGB (or Lab, CMYK, etc.) data (clipped or nearly-so) that you're constrained by.
but i just took the image into PS and used Levels to pul back the exposure and got the exact results as ACR
