Fuji x10 6MP RAW DR400 EXR mode vs old 6MP DSLR

Started Apr 14, 2014 | Discussions
Lightpath48 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,020
Re: X10 versus Nikon D200

DMillier wrote:

Absolutely! I'm confident in my claim that the 6MP mode of the X10 matches my old 6MP D100 for detail. Did enough shots to demonstrate that to myself. At the moment I'm starting to test the resolution difference between the X10's 6MP and 12MP modes. That work in not complete yet to my satisfaction so although my preliminary view is that there is not much difference, I haven't yet done enough to be completely convinced.

When I finished this work, I'll try and work out a way of testing whether ISO 100 DR400 in 6MP mode has any advantage in DR over ISO 100 DR100 (in raw). Until then, I'm not claiming anything factual. The DXO reference was a throw away line just to say that acknowledged authorities recognise that DR improves with newer sensor generations. They did not test 6MP EXR mode at all, only 12MP mode.

-- hide signature --

"...while I am tempted to bludgeon you, I would rather have you come away with an improved understanding of how these sensors work" ---- Eric Fossum
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/

I'm back in to respond to your question, re: the D200 sensor.  It is a 10MP CCD.  I have the D80 which has the same sensor as the D200. Once again, from my personal use with both, my D80 exhibits a higher actual native ISO than does my X10. The DXO comparison of these two cameras bears this out. My X10 shows more contrast at the same scenes, clipping highlights especially, much earlier. Using M Size ISO 100/DR400 puts the X10 closer, but as Trevor demonstrated very capably above, it's not up to the D200/D80 sensor.  Do you accept Trevor's side-by-side comparisons? Just asking.

 Lightpath48's gear list:Lightpath48's gear list
Nikon D3400 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR II Nikon AF-P 18-55mm F3.5-5.6G VR
Trevor G Veteran Member • Posts: 6,560
Re: EXR versus X-Trans, or X10 vs X20

cantanima wrote:

Trevor G wrote:

The above is RAW. Silkypix predominantly uses the second, shorter exposure. In fact, except at very low shutter speeds, I cannot see when the first frame is used.

Hence the noise.

The JPEG quality would be even worse, with much more detail smeared away..

I don't doubt that the X20 has a better sensor for low light than the X10; I've read quite a lot about recent improvements in sensor technology in that regard. However, taking one low-light shot & improving the S/N ratio using software alchemy, or combining several short, low-light exposures using software alchemy, and combining one short exposure in good light with one longer exposure in good light using software alchemy, are all very, very different things, with lots of options for how to combine, etc.

But that is not what we are looking at.

You would have to apply the same sort of effects to both images.  That's why I don't like supplying RAW because unless you handle both the same (noise reduction turned off, and so on) the test becomes meaningless.

-- hide signature --

Cheers
Trevor G
Silkypix tutorials at: http://photo.computerwyse.com

photoreddi Veteran Member • Posts: 7,757
Real DR vs pseudo DR, peering behind Oz's curtains.

DMillier wrote:

OK, here's how I think of it...

A sensor has a baked in maximum possible dynamic range determined by the full well capacity and (mainly) the read noise(in modern CMOS sensors). The read noise is an ongoing area of improvement but the latest exmor sony sensor are close to as good as it's going to get.

To achieve the best DR in your files, you need to shoot at base ISO, expose as far to the right as you can without clipping highlights and shoot raw. There's nothing much that can be done to improve on this with standard sensors.

The various flavours of highlight tone priority, Active D lighting etc certainly can't improve on the basic sensor DR. What these systems do achieve is for jpeg shooters. Essentially they map the available DR ad efficiently as possible to the jpeg file. For those shooting RAW, these tricks are of zero use. DR200 and DR400 in full size Fuji files are of no use at all when shooting raw.

If you want to extend DR beyond this, you need a different approach. One approach is HDR: you shoot multiple shots and combine them together either in post processing or in camera. The Fuji superccd in the S3 and S4 goes down a different route. The sensor contains 2 interleaved sets of photosites, one normal sized, the other smaller. A single shot activates both sets of pixels which are then combined in camera to give you a single shot HDR effect.

The EXR sensor is similar to the superccd approach but a little more flexible: you can choose to the use the second sensor pixels to extend the dynamic range or you can use it to increase the pixel count for more detail.

I have an S5 pro and the tech works beautifully. I don't have a great deal of experience with EXR used in this hardware DR expansion mode but all along I have assumed that Fuji know what they are doing and it really does work as well as the S5 superccd.

So, what I am expecting is that if use my X10 in 12MP mode I will get more detail and in 6MP mode I will get 2 stops of extra DR exactly like I get with the S5. I intend to verify this by testing. My initial testing suggests you don't really get that much extra detail when using 12MP mode. It looks to me like the difference between say 6MP and 7 or 8MP, not the full 12MP. It's early days but if this holds up across tests it wil be: 1. Slightly disappointing 2. Mean there is barely any point to the 12MP mode.

I don't know of anyone other than Trevor that doesn't recognize the similarity of how Fuji's S#Pro and EXR sensor's can substantially increase the captured DR, by either one or two stop's worth.

.

Of course, at this point I've done no testing of whether 6MP gives the promised +2 stops of DR.

All my comments refer to raw shooting, I have no interest in jpeg performance as I never shoot jpegs.

Then you'll have to find and use software that presents both sets of RAW data from a single RAF file which you would then examine separately or combine using an HDR technique, because the only easy way to directly get images having expanded DR from the EXR sensor's hardware DR would be to use the EXR camera's JPEG files.

I haven't yet read all of Trevor's replies in the thread but you should also be aware that in the past he has repeatedly denied that EXR sensor's DR hardware technique increases the DR that can be captured in a photo, saying over and over that it's just a "party trick", that the sensor size is what limits the DR that can be captured, completely ignoring the two different exposures that the EXR hardware has to work with. Now he seems to have slightly retreated, calling it a "kludge" instead of a "party trick".

In DPR's reviews of EXR cameras, they've shown examples of how effective the EXR hardware based DR is, yet when Trevor has commented on those examples he denies seeing any significant DR difference. He also has his own technique of measuring DR that unlike every competent review website or recognized expert, doesn't use DR measuring devices like Stouffer's transmission step wedges :

Stouffer has a wide range of wedges that are used in the various industries requiring photosensitive quality control devices. Several sizes and formats are offered to meet most needs.

...

For critical densitometry with traceability, the Stouffer T2120CC and the T1530CC meets and conforms to those needs. Densities of the T2120CC and T1530CC compare with those of a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Standard Reference Material No. 38120C Step Tablet by means of a densitometer that conforms to conditions specified in American National Standards Diffuse Transmission Densiy A.N.S.I. PH2. 19-1986. There is also the Stouffer XT1725CC step wedge produced on X-Ray film which conforms to NIST No. 38100C.

http://www.stouffer.net/TransPage.htm

When making his own DR measurements does Trevor use step wedges as DPR does in its reviews or a different technique used by any other recognized experts? No, his technique is based on taking pictures of bright white clouds. Ask him about it.

Trevor G Veteran Member • Posts: 6,560
Re: EXR versus X-Trans, or X10 vs X20

DMillier wrote:

One explanation for your results might be that the EXR technology doesn't work for X10 raws, only for X10 jpegs - but if this is the case  1. It would be really stupid 2. You'd need to explain why X10 6MP DR400 files are as big as 12MP files...

Another explanation is that I was using Silkypix for the RAWs which, as someone pointed out, meant that the X10 image was processed from the second, under-exposed frame only.

I just processed using Elements 11 (Adobe use both frames, good for them!) after converting the X20 image to DNG. The lowlight results are now almost indistinguishable, except that there is probably ever so slightly more noise from the X20 since it is at ISO200.

Haven't got time to upload processed images.

Nonetheless it still demonstrates the point that EXR Hardware has no real advantage over EXR Software.  Tne one disadvantage is in the processing requirements.

When you look at the OOC JPEGs there is still a slight but definite advantage for the X20.

-- hide signature --

Cheers
Trevor G
Silkypix tutorials at: http://photo.computerwyse.com

(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 500
Re: EXR versus X-Trans, or X10 vs X20
1

Trevor G wrote:

cantanima wrote:

Trevor G wrote:

The above is RAW. Silkypix predominantly uses the second, shorter exposure. In fact, except at very low shutter speeds, I cannot see when the first frame is used.

Hence the noise.

The JPEG quality would be even worse, with much more detail smeared away..

Perhaps I didn't express myself well enough.

The shorter exposure (in RAW, not JPG) will inherently be noisier in the shadows, because it has less time to collect information. The longer exposure (in RAW, not JPG) will not be as noisy in the shadows, because it has had more time to collect information.

If Silkypix & Fuji predominantly use the second, shorter exposure, they will produce a noisier picture. I'm saying that, since it's possible to combine the two exposures in a way that relies much more on the longer exposure for the shadows, it's possible to achieve a better result than what you are seeing here.

I don't doubt that the X20 has a better sensor for low light than the X10; I've read quite a lot about recent improvements in sensor technology in that regard. However, taking one low-light shot & improving the S/N ratio using software alchemy, or combining several short, low-light exposures using software alchemy, and combining one short exposure in good light with one longer exposure in good light using software alchemy, are all very, very different things, with lots of options for how to combine, etc.

But that is not what we are looking at.

You would have to apply the same sort of effects to both images. That's why I don't like supplying RAW because unless you handle both the same (noise reduction turned off, and so on) the test becomes meaningless.

Here's what I'd do: extract them as 16-bit TIFFs using dcraw, and adjust the exposures in digikam, primarily to see when noise appears in the darker image. Then I'd export the X10's exposures and combine them results using 2-3 different techniques. I would not perform any noise reduction, would use only free, open-source software, and I'd document it all in detail (including options supplied to command-line tools) so any fool could reproduce it.

If you don't want to participate, here's something else I can try: I'll take two shots of a high-contrast scene in the X10, one with M size ISO 100 DR 400 and one with L size ISO 400 DR 400. I'll then use the technique described above to see which has more information, and/or can be manipulated into a more pleasing image. This would demonstrate more convincingly whether EXR hardware techniques are a gimmick, especially since the same sensor would be used. (As I've acknowledged elsewhere, improvements in sensor technology can mean the X20's sensor may well have a wider dynamic range, which would suggest why its Raw files are 14 bits, to the X10's 12.)

I'll probably do the second either way, assuming I find time. If you have any suggestions on how to improve the test, I'm open to them.

Trevor G Veteran Member • Posts: 6,560
Re: Real DR vs pseudo DR, peering behind Oz's curtains.

photoreddi wrote:

I don't know of anyone other than Trevor that doesn't recognize the similarity of how Fuji's S#Pro and EXR sensor's can substantially increase the captured DR, by either one or two stop's worth.

The Super CCD technology used by the S Pro series is vastly superior to EXR technology. There really was extended highlight headroom there up to about +3.5 to 4EV.

The same cannot be said for the X10.

If it was the case you would have been able to demonstrate it.  It simply isn't possible, to the best of my knowledge.

When making his own DR measurements does Trevor use step wedges as DPR does in its reviews or a different technique used by any other recognized experts? No, his technique is based on taking pictures of bright white clouds. Ask him about it.

If real world high contrast images cannot show any real improvement of EXR at DR400 over X-Trans at DR200 then I would suggest that their measurements are slightly suspect.

I have yet to see an X10 demonstrate the extra 2EV over an X20, or any other camera for that matter.

Why don't you show us how?

PS  The clouds are used to provide a reproducable, peak white reading which also has easily detectable detail below that level.  It's quite effective, you can easily see when it's clipped or otherwise.

Instead of mocking, why not produce actual results that demonstrate your point?  You've had lots of time to do that...

-- hide signature --

Cheers
Trevor G
Silkypix tutorials at: http://photo.computerwyse.com

Trevor G Veteran Member • Posts: 6,560
Re: Real DR vs pseudo DR, peering behind Oz's curtains.

photoreddi wrote:

I don't know of anyone other than Trevor that doesn't recognize the similarity of how Fuji's S#Pro and EXR sensor's can substantially increase the captured DR, by either one or two stop's worth.

Just to clarify my point:

The extra highlight headroom available using EXR Hardware is essentially no better, IQ-wise, than the same result produced by EXR Software.

It (the amount of highlight headroom achievable) is no greater via EXR Hardware than can be achieved by EXR Software.

I imagine that if DPR had done the same DR tests for the X20 that they did for the X10 the result would be the same.

That's why they don't bother putting EXR Hardware solutions into real cameras.  The disadvanatges far outweigh any presumed benefits.

-- hide signature --

Cheers
Trevor G
Silkypix tutorials at: http://photo.computerwyse.com

Lightpath48 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,020
Quick 'n' Dirty Comparison: EXR raw vs. D80 raw
1

This is a fairly good comparison of the older APS-C 10MP CCD and X10 2/3" sensors using a livingroom scene with a view to the outdoors. Granted, our Wisconsin weather is crappy today and nothing is growing yet, outside. But I set this shot up with obvious dark shadows and bright daylight, albeit through a window pane. It's a sufficiently broad-ranged situation to clip both shadows and highlights though.

ISO 400 manual exposure is 160th sec. at f/2.5 in both cameras. The X10 raw are both set at DR400. I'm posting the M Size and L Size jpegs after raw conversion in-camera, with highlights and shadows pulled as soft as possible. Granted, some stand-alone editors could probably do better than this. But it's what I have to work with, as I'm an Aperture 3 user and that's out of the question for raw conversion.

The Nikon D80 sample is shot at identical ISO, shutter and aperture. Given the larger sensor, depth of field is much shallower. It's not a pretty picture. I've used ViewNX2 raw conversion, employing enhanced D Lighting at 30 on the slider, with WB adjusted to sunlight.

What I'm seeing is better highlight retention in X10 M size over both L size, and the D80 sample, and that is a surprise. Unfortunately the camera focused beyond the window in the first sample, so the indoor part is OOF. On my Aperture viewer the D80 final jpeg sample shows less highlight clipping than either X10 final jpeg file, although unfortunately the background foliage details are lost because of the shallow depth of field from the larger sensor. But the sample doesn't look as good as either X10 samples to my eyes. I really was expecting something else. My conclusion: the operator is the variable this time.

X10 L size raw with maximum in-camera highlight and shadow softening

X10 M Size with maximum in-camera highlight and shadow softening

D80 with ViewNX D Lighting adjustments to remove clipping (histogram tapering to both ends)

 Lightpath48's gear list:Lightpath48's gear list
Nikon D3400 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR II Nikon AF-P 18-55mm F3.5-5.6G VR
photoreddi Veteran Member • Posts: 7,757
Re: Real DR vs pseudo DR, peering behind Oz's curtains.
1

Trevor G wrote:

photoreddi wrote:

I don't know of anyone other than Trevor that doesn't recognize the similarity of how Fuji's S#Pro and EXR sensor's can substantially increase the captured DR, by either one or two stop's worth.

The Super CCD technology used by the S Pro series is vastly superior to EXR technology. There really was extended highlight headroom there up to about +3.5 to 4EV.

The same cannot be said for the X10.

If it was the case you would have been able to demonstrate it. It simply isn't possible, to the best of my knowledge.

When making his own DR measurements does Trevor use step wedges as DPR does in its reviews or a different technique used by any other recognized experts? No, his technique is based on taking pictures of bright white clouds. Ask him about it.

If real world high contrast images cannot show any real improvement of EXR at DR400 over X-Trans at DR200 then I would suggest that their measurements are slightly suspect.

I have yet to see an X10 demonstrate the extra 2EV over an X20, or any other camera for that matter.

The X20 has a newer, more modern, much improved sensor. Comparing the X10 to the X20 is not only foolish, it directly contradicts your claim about DR performance being primarily based on the sensor size. When the X10 was introduced there was no X20 to compare it to. But the F200EXR and other EXR cameras existed, and they were widely recognized as have the ability to capture much wider DR images than other cameras with the same size sensors. Real DR that it, not the shifted tone curve DR techniques that Fuji, Nikon, Canon and most other cameras had been using for years.

.

Instead of mocking, why not produce actual results that demonstrate your point? You've had lots of time to do that...

Mocking? I've only pointed out what you've actually already written. You mock yourself with your bizarre, unproven theories. How exactly does a cloud actually present an accurate, measurable light intensity that a step wedge couldn't duplicate? More importantly, how do you accurately measure the darker subjects at the opposite end of the scale? Do you measure with real, reproducable numbers or just tell yourself what you want to hear?

Waste time trying to convince you? You're like someone else here, where "actual results" are either ignored or denied if they show what you don't want to see.

Trevor G Veteran Member • Posts: 6,560
Re: Quick 'n' Dirty Comparison: EXR raw vs. D80 raw

Lightpath48 wrote:

The Nikon D80 sample is shot at identical ISO, shutter and aperture. Given the larger sensor, depth of field is much shallower. It's not a pretty picture. I've used ViewNX2 raw conversion, employing enhanced D Lighting at 30 on the slider, with WB adjusted to sunlight.

I'm going to suggest a slightly different method.

1) Pick a bright, outside object and shoot +/1EV shots until you find the point at which both cameras are not clipping any details on that object.

For this to show dynamic range properly you must choose a high contrast scene which would normally clip white and crush black.

2) Then compare exposure (slight differences are not important) and then lift the lowlights by 2 or 3EV to see how they expand.

3) Calculate the EV difference between the highlight portion and see where they both stop revealing lowlights as you increase exposure.

This is quite tricky and time consuming, but as long as you have a strongly high contrasted image to start with, it will work.  You do need darker elements which will not lift above black, though.

What I'm seeing is better highlight retention in X10 M size over both L size, and the D80 sample, and that is a surprise. Unfortunately the camera focused beyond the window in the first sample, so the indoor part is OOF.

Set the X10 to f5.6 or wider.  If f5.6 an APS-C camera should be set to at least f16 to give similar DOF

On my Aperture viewer the D80 final jpeg sample shows less highlight clipping than either X10 final jpeg file, although unfortunately the background foliage details are lost because of the shallow depth of field from the larger sensor. But the sample doesn't look as good as either X10 samples to my eyes. I really was expecting something else. My conclusion: the operator is the variable this time.

One issue with increasing dynamic range is that  the overall contrast will reduce, so that a sensor with much higher dynamic range will appear to have a "flatter", less appealing image.

To verify this, read the conclusion in DPR's review of the effect of the extra DR from the S5 Pro:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms5pro/19

In other words, you need to subsequently process an image with extra DR to get an appropriate "look".

To some extent Fuji are playing this DR game in reverse with their larger X-Trans sensor cameras.  The X-E2 and the X-T1 (and I think the X100s) now don't record as high a DR figure as the earlier cameras.  This is not due to a poorer sensor but the tone curve which is applied during in-camera processing.

Fuji are applying higher contrast to the lowlights. They now crush to black at least 1EV sooner than the earlier cameras.  Why would they do this?

It potentially gives a more punchy look to the OOC JPEGs.

-- hide signature --

Cheers
Trevor G
Silkypix tutorials at: http://photo.computerwyse.com

Kim Letkeman
Kim Letkeman Forum Pro • Posts: 33,424
Re: Fuji x10 6MP RAW DR400 EXR mode vs old 6MP DSLR
3

DMillier wrote:

Hi there

In case anyone has been wondering (as I had been), where modern cameras stand in relation to older classics, I've done a little test. I spent some time comparing the output of my X10 (set to 6MP medium Raw + jpeg and EXR DR400 mode) to my ancient Nikon D100 APS-C DSLR from 2003.

The idea behind this was simply to reassure myself that the X10 is a serious camera, not just some pocketable p&S.

Hmmm ... I have never seen a credible person accuse the X10 of not being serious.

I have no idea why you would compare it against 11 year old technology, even if it does have a much larger sensor. Try comparing it against something that costs about the same ... that would be a D3200 ... let me know how it does

 Kim Letkeman's gear list:Kim Letkeman's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 990 Fujifilm FinePix F770EXR Nikon D90 Nikon D600 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +15 more
Lightpath48 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,020
Thanks, Trevor

I appreciate your explaining a better process to me.  Whether I could ever pull it off is a concern.  I'll read through it a couple more times, to get a better sense. (Reading this near bed time.)

 Lightpath48's gear list:Lightpath48's gear list
Nikon D3400 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR II Nikon AF-P 18-55mm F3.5-5.6G VR
Trevor G Veteran Member • Posts: 6,560
Re: Real DR vs pseudo DR

photoreddi wrote:

The X20 has a newer, more modern, much improved sensor. Comparing the X10 to the X20 is not only foolish, it directly contradicts your claim about DR performance being primarily based on the sensor size. When the X10 was introduced there was no X20 to compare it to. But

There is an X20 now, and it is good at revealing dynamic range as the X10.

the F200EXR and other EXR cameras existed, and they were widely recognized as have the ability to capture much wider DR images than other cameras with the same size sensors. Real DR that it, not the shifted tone curve DR techniques that Fuji, Nikon, Canon and most other cameras had been using for years.

Except that all DR "captured" in whatever way can only be applied to the ooc JPEGs through tone curve techniques.  That's why the JPEG histogram doesn't match the equivalent's RAW highlights histogram.

There is no such thing as "real DR" with EXR - it is no different to ISO amplification in the need to use tone curves to squeeze the available image data into the possible JPEG space.

Here's an example - the "REAL" highlights with histogram are revealed in the crop from the RAW image on the left.

The matching ooc DR400 JPEG simply cannot handle all the information, some of which is clipped up against the right hand edge.  In addition, the low lights (note the R G and B peaks in each histogram) are squeezed up into the upper 1/3 of the image space, instead of being almost all the way to the bottom.

Note the reduced contrast in the ooc JPEG compared to the RAW as 2/3 of the image data is squeezed into 1/3 of the space.  Blue sky becomes cyan as B channel is compressed towards R channel.  This is the result of EXR Hardware processing in-camera.

If we reduce exposure of the JPEG slight;ly we see that the B channel is actually clipped as well:

EXR Hardware exposures are ultimately processed in the same way as EXR software exposures - via tone curves.  This reduces the available dynamic range information at the upper end.

Even if I use a DR400 ooc JPEG that didn't obviously clip you will still see that the highlights have been compressed. That can only happen through tone curve manipulation via the in-camera processing.

Ultimately EXR Hardware is no better than EXR Software in squeezinging more dynamic range
 information into the available image space.  The only advantage could come with not having to raise ISO - here we can wait for DMillier to show us what happens on the X10.

We know that the X10 has no "real" dynamic range advantage over the X20.  Different techniques, similar results.

How exactly does a cloud actually present an accurate, measurable light intensity that a step wedge couldn't duplicate?

I am going to suggest that studio test results are either not readily visible in real life images or, probably more likely, that EXR Software has taken over from EXR Hardware. It's easier to implement and more reliable, as the X20 shows.

I don't need to measure the light intensity at the clouds - the camera inteprets what it sees and, as I adjust EV compensation, either clips or reveals the details to give a starting point. It's relatively easy to detect what is clipping in an image and what's not.

That's all we need - the clipping point for peak white.  Friom there we lift shadows until we get no further detail provided, or noise intrudes.  That's all there is to real-life Dynamic range limit points.

More importantly, how do you accurately measure the darker subjects at the opposite end of the scale? Do you measure with real, reproducable numbers or just tell yourself what you want to hear?

Waste time trying to convince you? You're like someone else here, where "actual results" are either ignored or denied if they show what you don't want to see.

Once again, I don't think there is any need for you to be offensive.  You have yet to show one piece of evidence that the X10 has any more dynamic rnage than the X20.  It's just hearsay.  No evidence from you whatsoever.

On the other hand, I can show that the X20 shows as much highlight information as the X10 at the same exposure setting, without compromising shadow details.

-- hide signature --

Cheers
Trevor G
Silkypix tutorials at: http://photo.computerwyse.com

photoreddi Veteran Member • Posts: 7,757
Re: Real DR vs pseudo DR

Trevor G wrote:

photoreddi wrote:

The X20 has a newer, more modern, much improved sensor. Comparing the X10 to the X20 is not only foolish, it directly contradicts your claim about DR performance being primarily based on the sensor size. When the X10 was introduced there was no X20 to compare it to. But

There is an X20 now, and it is good at revealing dynamic range as the X10.

For the reasons that I mentioned. But if Fuji produced an new EXR sensor using the modern technology used for the X20's sensor, but without its X-Trans color filter array, its DR capability would have mopped the floor with the X20's DR capability. There was a real, valid point being made about comparing the X10's DR to any of its non-EXR peers. The only reason that you don't want to go there is because it weakens and worse, invalidates your assumptions.

.

the F200EXR and other EXR cameras existed, and they were widely recognized as have the ability to capture much wider DR images than other cameras with the same size sensors. Real DR that it, not the shifted tone curve DR techniques that Fuji, Nikon, Canon and most other cameras had been using for years.

Except that all DR "captured" in whatever way can only be applied to the ooc JPEGs through tone curve techniques. That's why the JPEG histogram doesn't match the equivalent's RAW highlights histogram.

Of course, but it's only you that talks about editing OOC JPEGs. I (and others) are talking about the JPEGs produced by the EXR camera's hardware based DR expansion, whose DR is NOT limited by the size of the sensor as you erroneously have claimed. Histograms are never based on RAW image data, they're always created from JPEGs, whether the JPEGs are produced in-camera or produced from a photo editor's memory image space after demosaicing the RAW into a memory space image that hasn't yet been saved to the memory card as a JPEG image file. In-camera histograms are notoriously conservative, indicating clipping way before it actually occurs, as photographers have noticed when they import JPEGs with supposedly blown highlights into their computer's photo editing software only to find that there's still a bit of headroom.

.

There is no such thing as "real DR" with EXR - it is no different to ISO amplification in the need to use tone curves to squeeze the available image data into the possible JPEG space.

In your dreams. It's clear that you're 100% back to your bogus EXR DR "party trick" theory.

.

Ultimately EXR Hardware is no better than EXR Software in squeezinging more dynamic range information into the available image space.

It's a waste of time even attempting to refute this nonsense. PM DPReview's camera review authors. Try to convince them that they're gullible and have fallen for Fuji's EXR DR "party trick".

OP DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 19,945
Re: Fuji x10 6MP RAW DR400 EXR mode vs old 6MP DSLR

People often struggle to understand why a comparison is meaningful to someone else without the context . The answer is that the d100 is the worst camera I own whose image quality is good enough that I would be happy using on a daily basis without feeling I was making a compromise . If the x10 can match the d100 then I would be comfortable using it for serious photography where I expected some images to form part of my portfolio. If it can't it becomes as useful as my other compact ,a canon g7- eg fine for holding doors open.
--
"...while I am tempted to bludgeon you, I would rather have you come away with an improved understanding of how these sensors work" ---- Eric Fossum

Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/

Ralph McKenzie Senior Member • Posts: 1,981
Re: DMillier ...
1

These really aren't a good comparison... I mean really ..wheres the cat in the first image

Apart from that I would give the nod to the X10, detail looks just a tad sharper.

-- hide signature --

Love dat Fuji
http://akiwiretrospective.wordpress.com/
Fuji HS20EXR
Fuji HS10,
Pentax sf7, Pentax zx-50

 Ralph McKenzie's gear list:Ralph McKenzie's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix HS20 EXR Canon EOS 1000D
Kim Letkeman
Kim Letkeman Forum Pro • Posts: 33,424
Re: Fuji x10 6MP RAW DR400 EXR mode vs old 6MP DSLR

DMillier wrote:

People often struggle to understand why a comparison is meaningful to someone else without the context .

Invariably because so many people create comparisons without providing any useful context.

 Kim Letkeman's gear list:Kim Letkeman's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 990 Fujifilm FinePix F770EXR Nikon D90 Nikon D600 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +15 more
OP DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 19,945
Re: Fuji x10 6MP RAW DR400 EXR mode vs old 6MP DSLR

The opening post of this thread explains exactly why I did the comparison....

-- hide signature --

"...while I am tempted to bludgeon you, I would rather have you come away with an improved understanding of how these sensors work" ---- Eric Fossum

Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/

jhorse Senior Member • Posts: 2,546
Re: DMillier ...
1

DMillier wrote:

Why would you use an EXR sensor in 12MP mode out of interest? In that mode it barely has more resolution than 6MP and none of the advantages. If you're not going to take advantage of EXR, why not use Xtrans or standard Bayer?

Here's one of tests (Images processed in latest Lightroom), let me know what you see...

-- hide signature --

"...while I am tempted to bludgeon you, I would rather have you come away with an improved understanding of how these sensors work" ---- Eric Fossum
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/

Hi, as a D40 (6Mp) user, albeit seldom now a days, and also a X20 user the X10 has more definition at it is able to picked up the cat that the D100 has failed to record!

More seriously, interesting comparison as I often use my X20 when taking a DSLR is too much and am pleased with how it performs.

-- hide signature --
 jhorse's gear list:jhorse's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Fujifilm X30 Fujifilm X-T20
OP DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 19,945
Re: DMillier ...

Next door used to be the home of a cat breeder and their garden including the shed was surrounded by netting to keep the local cats out. They moved recently and the local cats are free to get in that garden. That shed roof is irresistable to cats and foxes alike who love sunbathing up there. Our cat is black so perhaps it was beyond the dynamic range of the old CCD...
--
"...while I am tempted to bludgeon you, I would rather have you come away with an improved understanding of how these sensors work" ---- Eric Fossum

Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads