Dynamic Range

[bigpigbig]

With all the 5DIII / D1X threads, rumors, etc. I am surprised there is little to no talk of the biggest limitation in Digital Cameras.

It is NOT AF! The AF systems are amazing! Tracking small moving objects at thousands of times per second.

It is not sharpness! Unless you are interested in pixel peeping or printing 20" x 30" prints, they are all up to the task.

It is not noise! We are already getting low noise shots at 12,800 ISO. Are you kidding me?!

The biggest problem with all digital cameras is their extremely limited Dynamic Range. B&W film had 14 stops. Our eyes can see 20 stops. These cameras that are so amazing in many ways capture a measly 6-8 stops from black to white. How many shots are ruined or impossible without post production due to the limitation. Blinkies!? Are you kidding?

I am still using Graduated ND filters to tone down sunsets of bright skies to keep everything within the cameras' abilities.

When will we get a 20 stop dynamic range from these cameras? Why don't we have one already?

 

[Great Bustard]

With all the 5DIII / D1X threads, rumors, etc. I am surprised there is little to no talk of the biggest limitation in Digital Cameras.

It is NOT AF! The AF systems are amazing! Tracking small moving objects at thousands of times per second.

It is not sharpness! Unless you are interested in pixel peeping or printing 20" x 30" prints, they are all up to the task.

It is not noise! We are already getting low noise shots at 12,800 ISO. Are you kidding me?!

The biggest problem with all digital cameras is their extremely limited Dynamic Range. B&W film had 14 stops. Our eyes can see 20 stops. These cameras that are so amazing in many ways capture a measly 6-8 stops from black to white. How many shots are ruined or impossible without post production due to the limitation. Blinkies!? Are you kidding?

I am still using Graduated ND filters to tone down sunsets of bright skies to keep everything within the cameras' abilities.

When will we get a 20 stop dynamic range from these cameras? Why don't we have one already?

...to go switch to Nikon if DR is that important, since their D7000 with 13.9 stops of it at base ISO is far and above the pack leader.

Now, as for "When will we get a 20 stop dynamic range from these cameras?" Well, how long do you think it will take Nikon and Sony to eek out an extra six stops in their sensor tech, and Canon an extra eight?

I'm thinking it might be a while.

 

[bigpigbig]

My main point is that in a few short years digital cameras have caught up to and then quickly CRUSHED film cameras in their ability to Auto-Focus, Capture detail and have very low noise (small grain).

Yet the ability to capture dynamic range still lags quite substantially behind.

I am not really waiting, just pondering.

FWIW: I still use an EOS 3 with all my lenses and a Mamiya 645 film camera as well. I love the look and enjoy the process of developing and printing.

 

[joger]

. . . Our eyes can see 20 stops . . .

at the same time?

Wouldn't it be nice to have 30 or 40 stops and unlimited sharpness and ultra fast AF at the same time and absolute color accuracy?

Who needs 20 stops of DR? Well let me think - ah - you point in the sun and want all shadows also perfectly rendered? What's wrong with HDR?

But getting higher resolution is not possible with HDR and stitching has also only a limited usability in many cases - AF can fail and while I almost never use it I understand that there are photographers out that need a perfect working AF.

My guessing is that DR is limited at some point and that the current technology has more or less asymptotic reached that limit - maybe we get someday 15 or 16 stops - who knows but in terms of resolution the crop cameras show that the same lenses shine at double the resolution compare to a ff camera and we have the proof. For af we see that other cameras can do.

I dislike the whining about gear but i understand many wishes - I do recognize the limits of physics and I see better AF performance and more resolution much easier reachable then DR

--

isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top

ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'

“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein

 

[bigpigbig]

Can you explain what you know about limits of DR (or point me to a good resource)?

It seems to me that it would be an engineering problem that could be solved.

My feeble understanding is that the photo site is like a pot that catches light. Black level is attributed to the sensitivity of the pots (how quickly they fill / ISO). White then is defined by the pot filling up. I have heard that MF backs and 12mp FF sensors have larger DR (albeit only slightly, less than 1 stop).

1) bigger pots?
2) variable sensitivity?

I dislike the whining about gear but i understand many wishes - I do recognize the limits of physics and I see better AF performance and more resolution much easier reachable then DR

 

[1Balance]

2) variable sensitivity?

There is your answer. Eventually we will have such high pixel density that adjacent pixels will have different sensitivity. So a 70 MP sensor will actually be 35 MP output with 20 stops of DR. Party with that!

Cheers,
GT

--
Lyin' Pete used to do this all by touch...

 

[bigpigbig]

Seems too simple. Must be a good reason why it hasn't been done yet.

Not only would it allow for huge DR but Ultra Low noise.

While we are dreaming: if you could choose shutter speed for each. A 1/60 shutter speed where one sensor array stops collecting data after 1/250.

Damn, I need to get to the patent office!

2) variable sensitivity?

There is your answer. Eventually we will have such high pixel density that adjacent pixels will have different sensitivity. So a 70 MP sensor will actually be 35 MP output with 20 stops of DR. Party with that!

Cheers,
GT

--
Lyin' Pete used to do this all by touch...

 

[Steen Bay]

My main point is that in a few short years digital cameras have caught up to and then quickly CRUSHED film cameras in their ability to Auto-Focus, Capture detail and have very low noise (small grain).

Yet the ability to capture dynamic range still lags quite substantially behind.

I am not really waiting, just pondering.

FWIW: I still use an EOS 3 with all my lenses and a Mamiya 645 film camera as well. I love the look and enjoy the process of developing and printing.

Well, digital also needs post-processing, just like film. With digital we just need to be a bit more careful not to blow important higlights, and with HDR scenes it can often be necessary to lift the shadows afterwards, which is perfectly possible with the DR that DSLRs (including Canon's) have today.

 

[jgb]

Umm, a few exagerrations to begin with. The human eye only has about 6 or 7 stops of instantaneous dynamic range. The total dynamic range is about 20 stops, but to get to the very low luminosities it takes about 20-30 minutes of adaptation. The eye also has other major limitations. The angle of view of sharp vision is only a few degrees. Same with color vision. In low light, we see only in black and white. I get your point, but you've made some large exagerrations to make it.

A camera with 20 stops of DR would perhaps be nice, but most of the DR would need to be rolled off at the top and bottom.

I will take a 5DIII with about 13 stops of DR and be perfectly content. I wouldn't wait for 20 stops (not needed).

With all the 5DIII / D1X threads, rumors, etc. I am surprised there is little to no talk of the biggest limitation in Digital Cameras.

It is NOT AF! The AF systems are amazing! Tracking small moving objects at thousands of times per second.

It is not sharpness! Unless you are interested in pixel peeping or printing 20" x 30" prints, they are all up to the task.

It is not noise! We are already getting low noise shots at 12,800 ISO. Are you kidding me?!

The biggest problem with all digital cameras is their extremely limited Dynamic Range. B&W film had 14 stops. Our eyes can see 20 stops. These cameras that are so amazing in many ways capture a measly 6-8 stops from black to white. How many shots are ruined or impossible without post production due to the limitation. Blinkies!? Are you kidding?

I am still using Graduated ND filters to tone down sunsets of bright skies to keep everything within the cameras' abilities.

When will we get a 20 stop dynamic range from these cameras? Why don't we have one already?

--
Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jon_b

 

[bigpigbig]

jgb wrote:
your point, but you've made some large exagerrations to make it.

I know. Fun isn't it.

A camera with 20 stops of DR would perhaps be nice, but most of the DR would need to be rolled off at the top and bottom.

I just wan't the info to be there IF I need it. I am used to being able to burn in some highlights in the darkroom. The fact that cameras clip so abruptly is akin to poorly encoded mp3's. Surely this will change.

I will take a 5DIII with about 13 stops of DR and be perfectly content. I wouldn't wait for 20 stops (not needed).

13 stops would be GREAT! There is really only about 7 stops of useable DR at present. Forget about the test numbers. They are not indicating usable tones.

As far as recovering shadows in post, sure there is detail there but even with the masterful 5D MKII if is very noisy detail below -2.5 stops.

With all the 5DIII / D1X threads, rumors, etc. I am surprised there is little to no talk of the biggest limitation in Digital Cameras.

It is NOT AF! The AF systems are amazing! Tracking small moving objects at thousands of times per second.

It is not sharpness! Unless you are interested in pixel peeping or printing 20" x 30" prints, they are all up to the task.

It is not noise! We are already getting low noise shots at 12,800 ISO. Are you kidding me?!

The biggest problem with all digital cameras is their extremely limited Dynamic Range. B&W film had 14 stops. Our eyes can see 20 stops. These cameras that are so amazing in many ways capture a measly 6-8 stops from black to white. How many shots are ruined or impossible without post production due to the limitation. Blinkies!? Are you kidding?

I am still using Graduated ND filters to tone down sunsets of bright skies to keep everything within the cameras' abilities.

When will we get a 20 stop dynamic range from these cameras? Why don't we have one already?

--
Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jon_b

 

[bigpigbig]

The human eye only has about 6 or 7 stops of instantaneous dynamic range.

I am not talking about capturing light in a cave. I don't know about the science of it, I just know that what I am looking at often can not be captured. Sunsets, Interiors with a window, Stage lights, etc. A 3 stop ND filter usually does the trick (when it is appropriate), so it wouldn't take much to pull it off.

 

[olakiril2]

Not only would it allow for huge DR but Ultra Low noise.

While we are dreaming: if you could choose shutter speed for each. A 1/60 shutter speed where one sensor array stops collecting data after 1/250.

Damn, I need to get to the patent office!

2) variable sensitivity?

There is your answer. Eventually we will have such high pixel density that adjacent pixels will have different sensitivity. So a 70 MP sensor will actually be 35 MP output with 20 stops of DR. Party with that!

Check the Fuji X10, not 70MP yet but the idea is here.

 

[Slideshow Bob]

... with high dynamic range.

It's not the capture device that limits your actual useable dynamic range, it's the reproduction media. You'd need sunglasses to view the top end of 20 stops in the real world, but as far as I know, they haven't invented printer paper (or monitors) that you need to wear sunglasses to look at!!!

Suppose you actually had 20 stops of dynamic range. To get a useable image from such a camera you would always end up clipping or drastically compressing the highlights and/or shadows. If not, your images would look flat and dull, because the tonal range that makes up the important parts of the image would be squeezed into the middle of your histogram.

Of course, you'd also need a 16bit sensor and signal path.

About the only thing 20 stop DR would be good for is allowing you to select your output DR after the shot.

IMHO!

SB

 

[Its RKM]

Well, digital also needs post-processing, just like film. With digital we just need to be a bit more careful not to blow important higlights, and with HDR scenes it can often be necessary to lift the shadows afterwards, which is perfectly possible with the DR that DSLRs (including Canon's) have today.

That is heresy to some in these parts who honestly believe that lifting shadows later means incorrect exposure in the first place. No doubt they'll be along in a moment to deny their posts in 5DII banding threads.
;-)
--
Its RKM

 

[Chris Dodkin]

Agree 100%

The best paper can reproduce approx 200 tone levels max - less than the 256 levels of a basic digital file.

There's your limitation right there...

--
http://www.dodkin.com
[email protected]
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad

 

[EmotionBlur]

I will take a 5DIII with about 13 stops of DR and be perfectly content. I wouldn't wait for 20 stops (not needed).

I have no science backing me up but to me it's pretty much obvious that for any night scene I look at, my 5DII (nor any other camera, film included) can't even come close to the dynamic range that my eyes can see. I think there's still a big room for improvement for technology. That includes not only camera, but necessarily printing and displays as well (I haven't high hopes for printing, though).

Luc
--
http://ducav2.smugmug.com

 

[Andre Affleck]

Slideshow Bob wrote:

To get a useable image from such a camera you would always end up clipping or drastically compressing the highlights and/or shadows.

And whats wrong with compressing the highlights and/or shadows? As long as you do not affect the tonal curve of the mid-tones it can work. Isn't that what the highlight recovery slider is doing on most converters (although not very well)? Aren't you doing that (optically) with a gradient ND filter, printing 15 stops on your 8 stop printer?

The point is being able to capture the DR. What you do with it after is up to your software and/or post processing. Its wide open.

 

[Slideshow Bob]

Slideshow Bob wrote:

To get a useable image from such a camera you would always end up clipping or drastically compressing the highlights and/or shadows.

And whats wrong with compressing the highlights and/or shadows?

Nothing, as long as you like the "HDR" look. Personally, I prefer photos to look a little more realistic.

As long as you do not affect the tonal curve of the mid-tones it can work. Isn't that what the highlight recovery slider is doing on most converters (although not very well)? Aren't you doing that (optically) with a gradient ND filter, printing 15 stops on your 8 stop printer?

Perhaps, but I don't much like grads anyway! I have a 14 stop DR camera, and to be honest, I've never really come up against a scene that I couldn't capture pretty damned well. I'm not against decent DR, but I don't like the idea of a camera that, by default, is pushing that crappy "HDR" look.

The point is being able to capture the DR. What you do with it after is up to your software and/or post processing. Its wide open.

Sure, but having twice as much DR as you can realistically reproduce isn't anywhere near as important as the OP suggested, IMHO.

SB

 

[mariuss]

Umm, a few exagerrations to begin with. The human eye only has about 6 or 7 stops of instantaneous dynamic range.

Please, tell me where did You get this information?

--



http://photo.net/photos/MariusSabo

 

[filmluvr]

The series was based on Nikon bodies, and if memory serves, Fuji used 12MP sensors to produce high DR 6MP images. I agree completely with the OP that this is a missing ingredient in digital photography. OTOH, the latest cameras aren't too dissimilar from shooting with the limited DR of slide film.

Not only would it allow for huge DR but Ultra Low noise.

While we are dreaming: if you could choose shutter speed for each. A 1/60 shutter speed where one sensor array stops collecting data after 1/250.

Damn, I need to get to the patent office!

2) variable sensitivity?

There is your answer. Eventually we will have such high pixel density that adjacent pixels will have different sensitivity. So a 70 MP sensor will actually be 35 MP output with 20 stops of DR. Party with that!

Cheers,
GT

--
Lyin' Pete used to do this all by touch...

--
http://jackandkelly.zenfolio.com/