Dynamic Range -- what it is, what it's good for, and how much you 'need'

[boggis the cat]

The pathetic part is that like some others here, apparently you have trouble distinguishing where the pathetic behavior started

Wait a minute, M'lud Hodges:

Are you really saying that Joe needs to "explain" to us what DR is?

Yes, just as much as John King "needed" to explain to us all what a cat was, or Riley and Bill "needed" to explain to us all what a landscape photo is.

So you start with a strawman / non sequitur.

No one "needs" to post here at all, nor to respond. It's a privilege afforded us by the hosts of this site. When jackasses like you start trying to decide who "deserves" to post here, THAT'S when the trouble starts.

Followed by a misrepresentation of the argument, a personal attack, a lie, and a delusion or lie (hard to tell which).

Not a rhetorical question: do you believe that the OSTF, in particular, does not understand what DR is? No technical BS or recourse to DxO nonsense -- just straight-forward DR as shown by the very example that Joe pointed to.

That question is irrelevant.

It is entirely relevant. It is the only question that need be considered to prove or disprove the dispute, isn't it?

The relevance couldn't be more obvious.

Which ever way I believe would not give me the right to deprive him of doing so. Yet, if he, or you decided to post on why my dead mother was not a great Oly photographer, my reply would be a rebuttal or agreement.

Another strawman, rather than answering the question.

From this, I will assume that you fully understand the point but are simply attempting to work your way around it. This is Joe's tactic, too.

Prove your case.

Done it already.

What you have just proven is that you have no credibility. Just like Joe.

That is, IMO, useful to know.

If your pointing out that the OP is "pathetic" is acceptable forum behavior, certainly pointing out how your patheticness managed to supersede his , complete with support for my opinion, can hardly be faulted.

Support for your opinion? As in "evidence"?

Please do enlighten us all.

I take it your preference is to simply use unsupported accusations and (extremely clumsy and transparent) character assassination instead of trying to find some support for your claim?

My take from your avoidance of misquoting / misrepresentation in this instance is that you may have a reasonable level of personal integrity, but have trapped yourself into this "defender of the indefensible" position. (Feel free to correct me.)

On the contrary though, like others of your ilk, you find it much easier to accuse me of being someone's lawyer rather than face the truth that your OWN behavior is unacceptable, and smacks of the same mentality that people use to defend prejudice, bigotry, racism and other forms of abusive behavior.

You appear to be implying, through this claim, that you support the proposition that we do need to have DR "explained" to us.

My counter is that the bigotry in this case is not on our part, as we did not start a topic with a transparently spurious "educational intent".

You are the one making the accusations. Prove yours.

The "accusation" is sufficiently self-evident that you choose not to dispute it.

Thus you have proven it true and correct by way of avoidance.

I proved mine. The first jerk responded not to the thread topic, but with a personal attack on someone who did NOT attack him.

He attacked everyone on the OSTF, implicitly.

Again: do you seriously think this forum requires Joe to "educate us" about DR? Consider the implications of this.

Same as in the thread I linked with Rriley. Don't try to use smoke and mirrors as this is a public forum, and everyone here can see that you are guilty of the very tactics you attempt to pin on GB.

Everyone here -- yourself included -- can see that there is no justification for Joe starting this topic.

Would it be acceptable for me to start a topic in another brand-specific forum "explaining" what exposure is? Or how about "enlightening" them as to what EFL is?

It would to me, especially after the precedent set by the previous post on the topic.

So your argument is that one trolling / trouble-causing post sets a precedent for further such posts.

Duly noted.

I'm an avid Olympus owner, and forum member, but one who hotly detests idiotic forum members giving this place a bad reputation.

Tell his clown-ship to post somewhere else, then.

His clown-ship has the right to post here, and YOU are proving MY case. You want to be the authority on who should post here as if YOU own this forum.

No, I do not. Nor do Rriley, John King, or any one else that you don't like. (There may be some people on here who would want to restrict posts to "pro-Olympus" only; however nobody you seem to be in dispute with is in that category.)

In fact, it is actually you asserting authority on who may post what on this forum, and claiming that those who disagree do not have a right of response.

This will be the purview of the forum moderators in a few weeks time, so make the most of it I guess.

You and others have a problem with being shown as wrong, or with anyone having a complaint against Olympus. Grow the hell up and stop embarrassing those of us with decent home training.

It is your behaviour that seems to be questionable, and Joe who refuses to acknowledge error.

Being proven wrong is beneficial, and should be embraced.

Problem solved.

You must have been one of those kids whose parents let them get away with whatever they wanted. The ones who slap their parents when they don't give them candy and get away with it.

Not at all. Interesting that you bring that up, though.

It sounds like you believe yourself to be a parental figure / higher authority. Now, who does that remind me of...

(continued...)

 

[boggis the cat]

(continued...)

That's something that a troll will never be able to do. Only good upstanding members such as yourself have that power.

Yes, your worship. Obviously someone putting up a post "explaining" what DR is to the OSTF specifically is in no way an attempt to cause trouble; and such sad individuals must be protected from having their obvious issues pointed out to them by nasty people like Mr Jolly.

Those nasty slaves won't pick our cotton. Those Jews won't give up their property and get in these nice ovens...

Didn't take you long to get to Godwin's law, did it? Not looking like such a neutral and reasonable commentator now, are you?

Note that your response is a "counter" to my defence of JollyOlly's right of response. Your stance seems to be that Joe has a right to post (free speech) but JollyOlly has no right of response (no free speech). This is inconsistent.

(like ole' Boggis, demonstrating willful stupidity by totally ignoring the fact that GB qualified his position countless times with the stipulation of SAME SENSOR TECHNOLOGY)

"All other things being equal" was, I believe, the position. The fact that all things aren't is no obstacle to trying to insist that a theory is not only 100% correct (it's 96% correct, BTW) but also useful .

It beats your theory on who is allowed to post here and who you are allowed to be abusive to by 196%.

A diversionary strawman.

I'm really glad you posted this though as it makes it easier for people with a brain to see why those who choose to think like you should not be representing themselves as spokespeople for this forum or as an example of the mindset of a typical Olympus owner or forum member.

Unsupported assertions won't cut it with an easily searchable forum. The "he said / she said" uncertainty doesn't apply as anyone can go back through a posting history -- e.g. mine and yours -- to determine the truth of who is arguing for "who is allowed to post here" and "representing themselves as [a spokesperson]".

Actually, they only need look at this particular exchange between us.

So, there you have it. What DR is and what it is useful for.

Well, it's just as well you posted this, as I'm sure that nobody on the OSTF had any idea what DR was.

Or a cat, or a flower, or a fence, or any of the other things that OTHER people routinely post here.

Sorry, but you seem to be arguing that someone posting a photo of a flower has the intention of "educating us" as to what a flower is. Is that so?

I don't recall any "People on the OSTF are confused about what a flower is, here is a photograph of one" posts. Even Joe wouldn't dare be that transparent.

In fact nobody here knew that Olympus cameras could take pictures. Perhaps from now on we should abuse EVERYBODY that posts. That will teach 'em.

The ineffective moderation leads to problems. People countering nonsense posts (such as the OP here) are to be expected due to the lack of a moderator to pull such posts, or otherwise moderate (such as by requesting clarification as to the purpose).

Active moderation is what is required to maintain a reasonable level of civility while allowing for difference of opinion and even heated discussion.

Clown.

Maybe more like deliberate selective memory.

Fixed your selective quote, your honour.

Trusting you to fix a selective quote is kind of like trusting a serial rapist to fix the toilets in a girl's dorm.

That's highly specific. Do you have more detail to add to this fantasy of yours?

Such personal attacks serve only to detract from your credibility. A moderator would remove the post or otherwise act (such as by editing out such comments) to prevent escalation.

You're an idiot and I'm glad you've proven yourself well enough for me and others to cease to take you seriously. If that ain't a CLOWN, I don't know what is.

Well, Joe is a clown for posting nonsense such as that he started this topic with. You are a clown for trying to support this behaviour without being able to justify it -- instead resorting to personal attacks, strawman argument / false analogy, and even managing to invoke Godwin and some "rapist" nonsense.

Good job?

 

[boggis the cat]

Are you really saying that Joe needs to "explain" to us what DR is?

...on who is included in "us". For people who think:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=39499178

Compared to APS-C models you don't get 2 or 3 stops difference unless you are using DxO's bogus "DR" ratings.

There is a difference, but it's not large.

when, in fact, the difference is as huge as DxOMark claims:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=38379069

From your OP:

I'd like to begin with a rather stark example of what 13.7 stops of DR (D7000) offers over 11.2 stops of DR (5D2):

So that's 2.5 stops of DR. (Ignoring the larger sensor size and thus "total light" DR advantage of the 5D II. This implies a roughly 4 stop DR advantage to the D7000 sensor technology, doesn't it? Maybe you should address that, while you're at it.)

Please demonstrate where those 2.5 stops are present by shifting the exposure of that D7000 example you used (before using "relight" or similar tonal modifications), or some other examples where the raw file is available.

Then anyone interested can also assess those same raw files and decide whether the implied DxO DR difference is credible.

well, yeah, it might help if "they" knew what DR is, how it is measured, and how it applies to photography, so that they would be more able to understand what is "bogus" and what is not and show a little restraint with their self-harming posts.

On the other hand, many other people (in the same thread linked above), seem to have a more competent understanding of what DR is, how large the disparity can be between specific systems, when it matters, and when it doesn't.

Like "brightcolors", for example?

Do you mean the thread started by the "D7000 vs 5Dmk2 real shadow noise (DR) test, Mikael Risedal" post, or the "Utility of exposure bracketing" thread that you turned into a clown-fest?

I fully encourage anyone interested to review both threads.

And those people, of course, don't "need" an education, but some might find it interesting to understand DR in a little more detail.

So you are asserting that the OSTF in particular and exclusively has a sufficiently large proportion of people who do not understand what DR is to require your "educational" input.

Or possibly you are asserting that we don't understand what you claim DR is (which appears to be "DxO DR"), as you appear to not follow any argument for practicality in any of these theoretical number-massaging exercises.

In any case, obtain raw files and post your "proof". Then other interested parties can review this and maybe even draw a rational and useful discussion from your typical baiting post.

Or just keep up the clown-dance. Your choice.

 

[Great Bustard]

Are you really saying that Joe needs to "explain" to us what DR is?

...on who is included in "us". For people who think:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=39499178

Compared to APS-C models you don't get 2 or 3 stops difference unless you are using DxO's bogus "DR" ratings.

There is a difference, but it's not large.

when, in fact, the difference is as huge as DxOMark claims:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=38379069

From your OP:

I'd like to begin with a rather stark example of what 13.7 stops of DR (D7000) offers over 11.2 stops of DR (5D2):

So that's 2.5 stops of DR.

Yep. See that link just above? You know, the same one that was the first link given in my OP? That demonstrates the DR differential.

(Ignoring the larger sensor size and thus "total light" DR advantage of the 5D II. This implies a roughly 4 stop DR advantage to the D7000 sensor technology, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't, boggis. It's 2.5 stops, just like DxOMark says it is, just like the pics show it is.

Maybe you should address that, while you're at it.)

I've addressed it multiple times in this thread,for example:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=39618035

and even spelled it out to your face:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=39616280

No, it isn't "all about total light", but total light, like DR, is an important consideration.

Please demonstrate where those 2.5 stops are present by shifting the exposure of that D7000 example you used (before using "relight" or similar tonal modifications), or some other examples where the raw file is available.

Then anyone interested can also assess those same raw files and decide whether the implied DxO DR difference is credible.

Ask Mikael Risedal. You know, the guy who did the test I cited. I mean, seriously -- here I am, the "great advocate of FF" linking to a demonstration of how an APS-C camera whomps all over a FF camera, and you act as though I've come here to use the same example to show how much better APS-C is than 4/3.

Get a clue, boggis.

well, yeah, it might help if "they" knew what DR is, how it is measured, and how it applies to photography, so that they would be more able to understand what is "bogus" and what is not and show a little restraint with their self-harming posts.

On the other hand, many other people (in the same thread linked above), seem to have a more competent understanding of what DR is, how large the disparity can be between specific systems, when it matters, and when it doesn't.

Like "brightcolors", for example?

Do you mean the thread started by the "D7000 vs 5Dmk2 real shadow noise (DR) test, Mikael Risedal" post, or the "Utility of exposure bracketing" thread that you turned into a clown-fest?

I fully encourage anyone interested to review both threads.

Kinda hard for them to "review both threads" without the links, eh? Anyway, here's the link to my entry in Mikael Risedal's thread ("5dmk2 vs Nikon d7000 and shadow noise (DR)"):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=38367463

and here's my response to your "Utility of exposure bracketing" post (not thread):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=39499742

where I challenge you to support your claim that DxOMark's DR measurements are "bogus", where it was painfully obvious, once again, who the clown was.

Or possibly you are asserting that we don't understand what you claim DR is (which appears to be "DxO DR"), as you appear to not follow any argument for practicality in any of these theoretical number-massaging exercises.

My "claim" of what DR is exactly coincides with what DxOMark, Wikipedia, Cambridge in Color, and Uwe Steinmueller "claim" it to be.

In any case, obtain raw files and post your "proof". Then other interested parties can review this and maybe even draw a rational and useful discussion from your typical baiting post.

I'm not here to serve you boggis -- I'm here to debunk your specious claim that DxOMark's DR measurements are "bogus", and I've successfully done that, in spades, right from the OP.

That fact that you don't have the cognitive capacity to understand is another matter all together. I'm not trying to convince you -- that's hopeless -- I'm explaining to other interested parties (since the thread title is rather clear about the subject matter) who might swallow your BS without a correct understanding of what DR is and how it's measures.

And, from the responses from many in this thread, it seems that you are one of the few who remains clueless.

 

[Nemianiu Skqergl]

I was corrected upthread that Nikon makes the best pixels in the business, but I suspect that correction was based on Nikon's superior QE which likely has to do with the microlenses more than the pixels.

yes, i said it was qe, and microlenses are part of the pixel, just as CFA is.

I wonder why, well actually i wonder what secret Nikon has that improves the Sony sensors to even above what Sony can achieve.

I think it's the microlens design.

i think its CFA, better surround circuitry - quality of power supply is important in sensor - and better signal processing. nikon has some tricks.

 

[Sergey_Green]

..

Again: do you seriously think this forum requires Joe to "educate us" about DR? Consider the implications of this.

I see very often people equate DR with the JPG curve. In fact it is pretty much the standard on this forum, and I would not have a clue why. So starting the thread that defines, explains, and backs it all with examples was a very good idea indeed. And I bet those who are interested to know will bookmark the first post as well. Now, whether you call yourself "educated", or rather "educable", kind makes very little difference to the rest of the forum, does not it? It is not for one person, and you are not the one who represents the forum either. So the implication is rather simple - stop trolling and move on with whatever else you were doing. I doubt most would even care.

--
- sergey

 

[Camp Freddy]

I tried a few handeld combinations and always found it took ages or there was a slight skew or rotation or focus or atmospheric - it was a bit of frustration-reward when it worked but the one I chose here from handheld was not really worth it. ( below)

Thanks to Hodo for the comment:

I use the humble E450 so I realise it is going to be noisy and blow highlights so I actually like the challenge of living within my means so to speak. Same as in film days, although I found the OM's very liberating in size and functionality.

Plenty of dark evenings now and I will try an HDR plug in over manual.





--
================================
Enjoying Photography like never before with the E-450!
Images, photo and gimp tips:
http://olympe450rants.blogspot.com/

NORWEGIAN WOOD GALLERY
http://fourthirds-user.com/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/888

Olympus' Own E450 Gallery http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/e450/sample/

"to be is to do" Descartes;
"to do is to be" Satre ;

............................"DoBeDoBeDo" Sinatra.
=============================

 

[FrankyM]

If you understood what DR was, then you'd not be confused on this point. Would you like me to explain to you how it works out? Specifically, why neither sensor size nor pixel size figures into the calculation of DR?

Maybe you should explain it to Chuck Westfall, Technical Advisor in Canon USA's Pro Engineering and Solutions Division. who says

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5149972341/canon-eos-1d-x-overview

'There's a couple of things that we consider when we think about IQ: number one on this sensor is noise. It's clear the noise level is better than in the 1D Mk IV or the 1DS III. The pixel size is larger than in the 1DS III or 5D Mark II (6.95 microns, versus 6.4) and the difference is even more striking compared to the 5.7 micron pixels in the 1D Mark IV. That helps us in terms of light capturing ability and increases the signal to noise ratio. In turn, that does nothing but help the dynamic range of the camera. '

It's easy to see that pixel size is not the player, but rather sensor size and efficiency. The pixels in the 5Dc sensor have 58% more area than the pixels in the 5D2 sensor, yet the 5D2 has less noise and more DR. Why? Quite simple -- the sensors are the same size, but the 5D2 sensor is more efficient.

It's a different technology.

So far as I'm aware, it's the same tech, just on a finer scale. It's not the pixel size or sensor size for DR, but the sensor efficiency. Pixel size does play a role, but it's a secondary role, and they way it pans out is that smaller pixels, for a given sensor size and efficiency , result in greater DR per area , but the same DR per pixel .

So, the sensor in the 1Dx will have less noise and more DR due to a more efficient sensor, which, of course, one would expect after four years since the 1Ds3 (when the 1Dx is released).

Yes, and bigger pixels too. What he's saying is that for a given technology, larger pixels have a better SNR, a higher DR and thus the camera will have a higher DR.

That's not what he's saying at all. As I highlighted, he claims better per pixel noise performance , which is true for larger pixels. But that doesn't amount to better per area noise performance , which is the proper measure for the photo.

Well read what he does say -

That helps us in terms of light capturing ability and increases the signal to noise ratio. In turn, that does nothing but help the dynamic range of the camera. '

If you're talking about sensors, pixel noise performance is what it's about. If you're talking about photos then it depends also on the processes followed after image capture. However, image SNR cannot be more than pixel SNR at the same resolution.

And, as I've said elsewhere in this thread, the DR is the number of stops from the noise floor to the saturation limit. Smaller pixels have both lower noise floors and lower saturation limits, which are in proportion to the pixel area for a given efficiency, so the DR / pixel remains unchanged.

I'm not arguing the definition of DR, merely pointing out that what you say is in disagreement with Canon's spokesman.

If you don't agree with him you might want to send him an email.

Doesn't Chuck Westfall work as a marketing representative for Canon? He would be no more interested in hearing that smaller pixels have no IQ advantage than hearing that lens IS has no advantage over sensor IS.

I don't know who Chuck Westfall is but his title is given as "Technical Advisor in Canon USA's Pro Engineering and Solutions Division" by DPR. It doesn't sound like marketing to me.

In other words, if Canon could have made a 36 MP sensor that was just as efficient as the 18 MP sensor, noise performance, at the image level , would be superior to the 18 MP sensor.

The question, of course, is why they couldn't make a 36 MP sensor just as efficient. The answer is likely not that they couldn't, but that they chose not to due operational considerations. That is, a 36 MP sensor may not have been able to keep the same frame rate as an 18 MP sensor (there is evidence that is why the D3 and D3s did not have more pixels as well).

They obviously chose not to, but what 'operational' considerations?

That would be the green text above (I put it in bold) and also the green text in the paragraph below.

Then I misunderstood you. I consider that a 'technical' rather than operational consideration (normally operational refers to the actual operation of a business - so if, for example, not enough 36mp sensors could be manufactured in time for a fixed date product launch, that would be an operational reason to go with something else).

Nevertheless, that's just conjecture on your part.

So, combine that with a marketing spin based on so few understanding the difference between a pixel level measure and an image level measure, and, voila, the 18 MP FF sensor in the 1Dx being sold as having less noise in part due to larger pixels to cover the fact that Canon couldn't get the desired frame rate with more pixels.

A nice story. But is it true?

If not a design choice , then it's likely that Canon is using a new sensor tech, and they lacked the ability to make smaller pixels with it at this time. In the next generation, they will likely shrink the scale, making more pixels with it. In fact, that has been Canon's history in sensor design for some time.

Well the history with their G series is one of increasing pixels and then decreasing them. So the question is why?

 

[FrankyM]

You mean he lies or he simply doesn't know?

Nothing that sinister - simply that he is in the camera selling business and caveat emptor applies.

So he's either lying or doesn't know...

 

[mrhodges2]

Are you really saying that Joe needs to "explain" to us what DR is?

Yes, just as much as John King "needed" to explain to us all what a cat was, or Riley and Bill "needed" to explain to us all what a landscape photo is.

So you start with a strawman / non sequitur.

No, I started with a valid point, if you have a brain. If you are out to justify bad behavior at all costs, then it is pretty pointless to have a discussion with you, as we have had this same discussion in private, a discussion in which I would be more than happy to make public. Your lame attempts at misrepresentation are useless and only expose you for the blind idiot you are. you'll justify YOUR behavior at all costs.

No one "needs" to post here at all, nor to respond. It's a privilege afforded us by the hosts of this site. When jackasses like you start trying to decide who "deserves" to post here, THAT'S when the trouble starts.

Followed by a misrepresentation of the argument, a personal attack, a lie, and a delusion or lie (hard to tell which).

The ONLY personal attack came from Jolly Oly. that fact is key in what followed. The misrepresentation of the argument came from you. That fact is also key. The further fact is that after you and he shut your freaking mouths, a normal, civil conversation ensued amongst those who were interested in the topic, a subtle clue as to who was originally screwing everything up.

That question is irrelevant.

It is entirely relevant. It is the only question that need be considered to prove or disprove the dispute, isn't it?

Because it is relevant to YOU, does not make it "entirely" relevant. As usually happens when you or another person decides they have a right to attack someone without cause, they start by manufacturing a cause. When I posed the same question back to you, I didn't get an answer either because you know that your question has nothing to do with whether a person may post here. Your attempt at placing a stipulation on GB's right to post that you do not apply to EVERYONE that posts here is a straw man, and YOU know it. You are just counting on me to be too stupid to know it, but you crapped out on that one.

That's what's so funny about your even attempting to rebut me, you justify tactics for your own use that you declare are wrong for others. A classic move that only lets one know that you knew you were wrong in the beginning. GB never said that OSTF does not know what dynamic range is. He posted the topic so that those who DON'T know or those who would like to discuss it would have that option. You wade in and attempt to assign GB a motive, and then ask ME if I think the motive YOU assigned HIM is what I think. If you do know what a straw man is, how is it you don't recognize it when YOU build one?

The relevance couldn't be more obvious.

The irrelevance couldn't be more obvious, nor could your hypocrisy. The only obvious thing here is that you don't remember saying "have at it" as if you were going to leave this thread. You then realize how much of a total fool you have represented yourself as, and so you come back to try to save face and fix it with MORE specious arguments.

Another strawman, rather than answering the question.

When GB says the same thing, I do remember someone accusing him of demanding answers and that answers are optional.

From this, I will assume that you fully understand the point but are simply attempting to work your way around it. This is Joe's tactic, too.

You are free to assume anything you want. Just be aware that your assumptions and reality have nothing in common.

Done it already.

What you have just proven is that you have no credibility. Just like Joe.

Good. If that's the case, you have discovered about me what I long ago discovered about you during our private discussions. That's why I stopped responding to you. Now, since you feel that way too, take any further discussions about me to either your own thread, where I'll happily engage you in public, or simply shut the hell up as you were doing so well with until now. That will simultaneously give you the opportunity to further publicly prove yourself an idiot, and me the opportunity to help you do so.

For the record, GB already hinted upon the fact that you probably knowingly stir up entertainment for the distraction value alone. So you've been made.

Robert

 

[JLTaylor]

In this image does detail in the shadows really add that much to the image?

The noise is annoying, but I would hit the shadows pretty hard with noise reduction.
I copied the second example and in about 30 seconds changed it from this:





to this:





The Canon has less resolution, but it's in the shadows (shadowy: vague, mysterious or secretive, illusory or imaginary). I don't think more detail would add to the overall
image.

This is an example from the lowly E-3

Out of camera:





Quick lift of shadows and noise reduction:





DR and extreme ISO has become synonymous with IQ on this forum. I think of them both as extending the envelope where the camera is usable. Typically it is not what I am interested in shooting, and often there are workarounds. Not that I wouldn't want more DR, but I think the current Panasonic sensors have excellent image quality in the conditions I try to shoot in.

I would like my car to have more horsepower, and faster acceleration can certainly be useful, but I wouldn't give up 5 mpg all the time to get it. I would like more DR and it can certainly be useful in some situations, but I wouldn't give up lens quality in all my shots to get it (or the extra bulk/weight of some systems).

There are always tradeoffs.

--
Jeff Taylor
http://www.pbase.com/jltaylor

 

[boggis the cat]

Apparently the two sensors are not equally efficient, they are not from the same year, from different makers, etc, etc ....

Are they 2.5 or 4 stops apart in DR?

Or something else?

Get the clue boggis, because you are clueless does not mean the others are.

The clue, Sergey, is in practicality .

Joe's theory "falls between two stools": on the one hand, it is a needlessly complex restatement of the trivial; on the other hand, it is dependent upon a fictional "all other things being equal".

The end result is something that is useless for application to photography.

Well, perhaps you have a tale about how applying "equivalence theory" in some situation proved useful?

 

[boggis the cat]

Are you really saying that Joe needs to "explain" to us what DR is?

Yes, just as much as John King "needed" to explain to us all what a cat was, or Riley and Bill "needed" to explain to us all what a landscape photo is.

So you start with a strawman / non sequitur.

No, I started with a valid point, if you have a brain.

Assertion and personal attack.

If you are out to justify bad behavior at all costs, then it is pretty pointless to have a discussion with you, as we have had this same discussion in private, a discussion in which I would be more than happy to make public.

Go for it, if you think that adds to your argument. I have that discussion, too, though, so do be careful of any selective quoting.

Your lame attempts at misrepresentation are useless and only expose you for the blind idiot you are. you'll justify YOUR behavior at all costs.

Assertion and personal attack.

No one "needs" to post here at all, nor to respond. It's a privilege afforded us by the hosts of this site. When jackasses like you start trying to decide who "deserves" to post here, THAT'S when the trouble starts.

Followed by a misrepresentation of the argument, a personal attack, a lie, and a delusion or lie (hard to tell which).

The ONLY personal attack came from Jolly Oly.

I'm pretty sure that's you making personal attacks aimed at me.

Look real hard. See them?

that fact is key in what followed. The misrepresentation of the argument came from you. That fact is also key.

No misrepresentation was involved in pointing out that Joe feels the need to "explain" to the OSTF -- exclusively -- what DR is.

You have failed to respond adequately to this point.

The further fact is that after you and he shut your freaking mouths, a normal, civil conversation ensued amongst those who were interested in the topic, a subtle clue as to who was originally screwing everything up.

Right... I take it that this is an entirely "reasonable" position to take, in your view.

I see that Joe and his followers have had to resort to asserting that Canon are a bunch of liars, too. Is that my fault, or Jolly Oly's?

Oh, and are either of us disrupting that threads that are keeping to a point? Would such a conversation be more relevant in a forum other than the OSTF?

That question is irrelevant.

It is entirely relevant. It is the only question that need be considered to prove or disprove the dispute, isn't it?

Because it is relevant to YOU, does not make it "entirely" relevant.

It is relevant to what you are disputing .

You are ignoring the salient point and pursuing a line of personal attack and ranting. I take it that you do not see the irony in this, given what you like to accuse others of?

As usually happens when you or another person decides they have a right to attack someone without cause, they start by manufacturing a cause.

I didn't start the topic nor choose the wording, that was Joe's decision and thus of his manufacture.

When I posed the same question back to you, I didn't get an answer either because you know that your question has nothing to do with whether a person may post here. Your attempt at placing a stipulation on GB's right to post that you do not apply to EVERYONE that posts here is a straw man, and YOU know it. You are just counting on me to be too stupid to know it, but you crapped out on that one.

Let's examine the "stupid" point.

So you actually believe that Joe's post "explaining" DR was necessary and entirely without malicious intent? Something on the same order of reasonableness as "The Sunday Cat" topic?

If your genuine answer is "yes"; then yes, Robert, you are stupid. If, OTOH, your answer is "yes", but disingenuous , then you are perpetrating a fraud to cover for trolling. I can only see those options.

That's what's so funny about your even attempting to rebut me, you justify tactics for your own use that you declare are wrong for others. A classic move that only lets one know that you knew you were wrong in the beginning. GB never said that OSTF does not know what dynamic range is. He posted the topic so that those who DON'T know or those who would like to discuss it would have that option.

But only those in the OSTF. Curious.

Now, Robert, why do you think it may be that Joe chooses to post in this forum constantly? He doesn't own Olympus equipment, nor have any interest in it. What is his motivation? As I've said to you before: it comes down to the motive.

You wade in and attempt to assign GB a motive, and then ask ME if I think the motive YOU assigned HIM is what I think. If you do know what a straw man is, how is it you don't recognize it when YOU build one?

I asked you to argue for a different motive.

You posted some nonsense about photos of cats and flowers being taken as evidence of intent to educate us as to what a cat or flower is.

(continued...)

 

[boggis the cat]

(continued...)

The relevance couldn't be more obvious.

The irrelevance couldn't be more obvious, nor could your hypocrisy. The only obvious thing here is that you don't remember saying "have at it" as if you were going to leave this thread.

Oh, so you thought you were having the last word? That was an invitation to make your case, and your misapprehension is no excuse for your throwing a tantrum.

You then realize how much of a total fool you have represented yourself as, and so you come back to try to save face and fix it with MORE specious arguments.

The problem could be that you really do not follow what is going on.

However, were that the case then it's odd that you are apportioning blame only to those countering Joe's lovely little posts.

Another strawman, rather than answering the question.

When GB says the same thing, I do remember someone accusing him of demanding answers and that answers are optional.

Sure, they always are.

Resort to rants such as you are posting, because I refuse to go along with your ruling, is also optional.

It appears that you cannot back up your assertions, so you are resorting to trying to bully me into submission? That won't work, I can assure you.

From this, I will assume that you fully understand the point but are simply attempting to work your way around it. This is Joe's tactic, too.

You are free to assume anything you want. Just be aware that your assumptions and reality have nothing in common.

Refusing to address the point raised, on the grounds that you don't have to, does imply that you realise that your position is untenable.

Done it already.

What you have just proven is that you have no credibility. Just like Joe.

Good. If that's the case, you have discovered about me what I long ago discovered about you during our private discussions. That's why I stopped responding to you.

I thought it was because you couldn't convince me that it was other people who are the cause of the problems on this forum, and that Joe was a poor innocent.

Now, since you feel that way too, take any further discussions about me to either your own thread, where I'll happily engage you in public, or simply shut the hell up as you were doing so well with until now.

Does it strike you as odd that your argument is that I am trying to censure Joe, and yet here you are trying to do the silencing.

(Must... resist... resort to... Godwin. Well, technically I didn't...)

That will simultaneously give you the opportunity to further publicly prove yourself an idiot, and me the opportunity to help you do so.

The ball's back in your court. Start your own "Everyone is being mean to Joe" topic on here and see how it goes, if you want. Or "Nobody will do as I say", perhaps.

So far you're just ranting and making baseless assertions. Why not show that you are capable of this rational discourse that you like to accuse others of not being capable of, and try to make a cogent case for your position.

For the record, GB already hinted upon the fact that you probably knowingly stir up entertainment for the distraction value alone. So you've been made.

Yeah, that's the only explanation all right. (Where's the "smiley" for sarcasm?)

I will admit that you could simply be very gullible, and there are many different kinds of stupid.

(Including, of course, bothering to waste time responding to possible nutters on the internet. I'm really looking forward to seeing if active moderation can drain this swamp.)

BTW, are you going to respond to my reply to the other half of your rant?
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=39625821

I'm just curious as to how you'll set about blaming me for your behaviour, really.

 

[mrhodges2]

Like I said before, Boggis, start your own thread, and I'll continue to help you make an even bigger fool of yourself. Your further attempts to trash this one by your long-winded, multi-part posts (reminiscent of John King) will be ignored. Anyone with any doubts need only go back and read the sequence of events from the beginning.

Robert

 

[Great Bustard]

Well read what he does say -

That helps us in terms of light capturing ability and increases the signal to noise ratio. In turn, that does nothing but help the dynamic range of the camera. '

Well, with a fair bit of twisting, you could make that statement true. One could say that a new, more efficient, design could not be made with smaller pixels at the current time, thus the larger pixels give more DR than smaller pixels. This gives the impression that the greater DR is a result of larger pixels rather than a more effiicent sensor with new tech. This is also likely the answer to the Canon G12 question you pose further below.

But for a given sensor efficiency , larger pixels have no DR advantage over smaller pixels.

If you're talking about sensors, pixel noise performance is what it's about.

Not at all -- the number of pixels is also a key player. If the pixels can be made so that the read noise and saturation scale with the area of the pixel (equally efficient), then smaller pixels are always better (in terms of IQ).

If the smaller pixels cannot be made as efficient, then depending on the difference in the number of pixels and the difference in efficiency, smaller pixels will have an advantage in some circumstances, and larger pixels will have an advantage in others.

If you're talking about photos then it depends also on the processes followed after image capture. However, image SNR cannot be more than pixel SNR at the same resolution.

If you're talking about the photos (which I always am), then it's not how an individual pixel performs, but how the pixels perform in aggregate. For example, we wouldn't compare a single 2x2 pixel to a single 1x1 pixel, but rather four 1x1 pixels.

And, as I've said elsewhere in this thread, the DR is the number of stops from the noise floor to the saturation limit. Smaller pixels have both lower noise floors and lower saturation limits, which are in proportion to the pixel area for a given efficiency, so the DR / pixel remains unchanged.

I'm not arguing the definition of DR, merely pointing out that what you say is in disagreement with Canon's spokesman.

Of course, "Canon's spokesman" is going to put a positive spin on every choice Canon makes. Now, as I've said, perhaps Canon is using a new tech, and it couldn't be made with more pixels at this time, and it indeed does have a significant advantage over an older tech with more pixels.

But it is not because the pixels are larger per se, but rather because Canon does not yet have the capability to make the tech with smaller pixels. However, as I said, I think it has more to do with maintaining the high frame rate than the inability to make smaller pixels.

Doesn't Chuck Westfall work as a marketing representative for Canon? He would be no more interested in hearing that smaller pixels have no IQ advantage than hearing that lens IS has no advantage over sensor IS.

I don't know who Chuck Westfall is but his title is given as "Technical Advisor in Canon USA's Pro Engineering and Solutions Division" by DPR. It doesn't sound like marketing to me.

Perhaps "US advisors sent to Uganda" doesn't sound like "fully armed soldiers" to you, either.

Then I misunderstood you. I consider that a 'technical' rather than operational consideration (normally operational refers to the actual operation of a business - so if, for example, not enough 36mp sensors could be manufactured in time for a fixed date product launch, that would be an operational reason to go with something else).

I call anything that involves the operation of the camera as "operational", e.g. AF, frame rate, etc.

Nevertheless, that's just conjecture on your part.

Of course -- it's not as if Canon sent me the specs and asked my advice. But, my "conjecture" is based on solid, and well understood, principles.

Well the history with their G series is one of increasing pixels and then decreasing them. So the question is why?

I hope my explanation above (first paragraph) answered that question to your satisfaction.

 

[Great Bustard]

Apparently the two sensors are not equally efficient, they are not from the same year, from different makers, etc, etc ....

Are they 2.5 or 4 stops apart in DR?

Or something else?

Get the clue boggis, because you are clueless does not mean the others are.

The clue, Sergey, is in practicality .

Joe's theory "falls between two stools": on the one hand, it is a needlessly complex restatement of the trivial; on the other hand, it is dependent upon a fictional "all other things being equal".

The end result is something that is useless for application to photography.

Well, perhaps you have a tale about how applying "equivalence theory" in some situation proved useful?

...that you talk about "ignoring", because the answer to all those questions was given right in the OP:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=39612858

 

[Great Bustard]

In this image does detail in the shadows really add that much to the image?

Yes, it does, if detail in the shadows is important.

The noise is annoying, but I would hit the shadows pretty hard with noise reduction.

Noise reduction necessarily reduces detail.

I copied the second example and in about 30 seconds changed it from this:





to this:





The Canon has less resolution, but it's in the shadows (shadowy: vague, mysterious or secretive, illusory or imaginary). I don't think more detail would add to the overall image.

NR merely turned noise to mush, in this particular case.

This is an example from the lowly E-3

Out of camera:





Quick lift of shadows and noise reduction:

Indeed. When looking inside the trailor on the larger size pic, the effects of the pushing are painfully obvious.

DR and extreme ISO has become synonymous with IQ on this forum. I think of them both as extending the envelope where the camera is usable.

That's exactly right -- greater DR, less noise, and more detail all "extend the envelope where the camera is usable".

Typically it is not what I am interested in shooting, and often there are workarounds. Not that I wouldn't want more DR, but I think the current Panasonic sensors have excellent image quality in the conditions I try to shoot in.

Absolutely.

I would like my car to have more horsepower, and faster acceleration can certainly be useful, but I wouldn't give up 5 mpg all the time to get it. I would like more DR and it can certainly be useful in some situations, but I wouldn't give up lens quality in all my shots to get it (or the extra bulk/weight of some systems).

There are always tradeoffs.

Absolutely. No single measure of a camera defines a system. By the same token, simply because one's system of choice is lacking compared to another system in one respect or another is not reason to say that this or that is unimportant. It may well be unimportant to you, and it may be that the other advantages of your system outweigh that advantage of the other system.

But we first need to make an honest assessment of the capabilities of the systems, and then choose the system that best represents our specific, and personal, needs. And, in all seriousness, for some that choice is a cell phone, for others that choice is large format film.

 

[FrankyM]

Well read what he does say -

That helps us in terms of light capturing ability and increases the signal to noise ratio. In turn, that does nothing but help the dynamic range of the camera. '

Well, with a fair bit of twisting, you could make that statement true. One could say that a new, more efficient, design could not be made with smaller pixels at the current time, thus the larger pixels give more DR than smaller pixels. This gives the impression that the greater DR is a result of larger pixels rather than a more effiicent sensor with new tech. This is also likely the answer to the Canon G12 question you pose further below.

But for a given sensor efficiency , larger pixels have no DR advantage over smaller pixels.

If you're talking about sensors, pixel noise performance is what it's about.

Not at all -- the number of pixels is also a key player. If the pixels can be made so that the read noise and saturation scale with the area of the pixel (equally efficient), then smaller pixels are always better (in terms of IQ).

If you are talking about sensors, not images, then IMO the number of pixels has nothing to do with it at all.

If the smaller pixels cannot be made as efficient, then depending on the difference in the number of pixels and the difference in efficiency, smaller pixels will have an advantage in some circumstances, and larger pixels will have an advantage in others.

If you're talking about photos then it depends also on the processes followed after image capture. However, image SNR cannot be more than pixel SNR at the same resolution.

If you're talking about the photos (which I always am), then it's not how an individual pixel performs, but how the pixels perform in aggregate. For example, we wouldn't compare a single 2x2 pixel to a single 1x1 pixel, but rather four 1x1 pixels.

The pixels don't 'perform in aggregate'. You process the data. Then you're comparing the results of one process with the results of another. So for example if you reduce the resolution of a 20 Mp image to 10 Mp to compare with something else, your results will depend a great deal on how you reduced that resolution.

And, as I've said elsewhere in this thread, the DR is the number of stops from the noise floor to the saturation limit. Smaller pixels have both lower noise floors and lower saturation limits, which are in proportion to the pixel area for a given efficiency, so the DR / pixel remains unchanged.

I'm not arguing the definition of DR, merely pointing out that what you say is in disagreement with Canon's spokesman.

Of course, "Canon's spokesman" is going to put a positive spin on every choice Canon makes. Now, as I've said, perhaps Canon is using a new tech, and it couldn't be made with more pixels at this time, and it indeed does have a significant advantage over an older tech with more pixels.

But it is not because the pixels are larger per se, but rather because Canon does not yet have the capability to make the tech with smaller pixels. However, as I said, I think it has more to do with maintaining the high frame rate than the inability to make smaller pixels.

I've no idea whether Canon has the capability or not but this is not the reason they reduced the pixel count of the G11 cf. the G10.

Doesn't Chuck Westfall work as a marketing representative for Canon? He would be no more interested in hearing that smaller pixels have no IQ advantage than hearing that lens IS has no advantage over sensor IS.

I don't know who Chuck Westfall is but his title is given as "Technical Advisor in Canon USA's Pro Engineering and Solutions Division" by DPR. It doesn't sound like marketing to me.

Perhaps "US advisors sent to Uganda" doesn't sound like "fully armed soldiers" to you, either.

Perhaps it doesn't but it's not much of an argument...

Then I misunderstood you. I consider that a 'technical' rather than operational consideration (normally operational refers to the actual operation of a business - so if, for example, not enough 36mp sensors could be manufactured in time for a fixed date product launch, that would be an operational reason to go with something else).

I call anything that involves the operation of the camera as "operational", e.g. AF, frame rate, etc.

Nevertheless, that's just conjecture on your part.

Of course -- it's not as if Canon sent me the specs and asked my advice. But, my "conjecture" is based on solid, and well understood, principles.

You may be right but it's still conjecture.

Well the history with their G series is one of increasing pixels and then decreasing them. So the question is why?

I hope my explanation above (first paragraph) answered that question to your satisfaction.

Well, thanks for trying...

 

[Great Bustard]

If you are talking about sensors, not images, then IMO the number of pixels has nothing to do with it at all.

As I said, I'm always talking about the final photo.

If you're talking about the photos (which I always am), then it's not how an individual pixel performs, but how the pixels perform in aggregate. For example, we wouldn't compare a single 2x2 pixel to a single 1x1 pixel, but rather four 1x1 pixels.

The pixels don't 'perform in aggregate'. You process the data. Then you're comparing the results of one process with the results of another. So for example if you reduce the resolution of a 20 Mp image to 10 Mp to compare with something else, your results will depend a great deal on how you reduced that resolution.

Well, I guess this is where the diversion into semantics begins. How about this: you don't compare (in terms of the final photo) a single 2x2 pixel to a single 1x1 pixel -- you compare to four 1x1 pixels.

But it is not because the pixels are larger per se, but rather because Canon does not yet have the capability to make the tech with smaller pixels. However, as I said, I think it has more to do with maintaining the high frame rate than the inability to make smaller pixels.

I've no idea whether Canon has the capability or not but this is not the reason they reduced the pixel count of the G11 cf. the G10.

Well, if you have no idea, then you have no idea. But I can tell you, for a fact , that more pixels for a given sensor size and efficiency results in more IQ all the way around (although this is subject to diminishing returns, of course). The only question is if the pixels can be made smaller without adversely affecting efficiency. However, the overall trend is that pixels have been getting smaller and more efficient. Of course, that's not to say that when a new technology comes out, that it might not have to begin with larger pixels.