Hi. If dynamic range can be measured, why don't manufacturers include it with the rest of specs?

[SrMi]

The bottom line is that the dynamic range of almost every modern ILC camera is enough for the vast majority of shooters. People who want to absolutely maximize dynamic range are in the minority.

Camera manufacturers are for-profit businesses. This encourages them to focus on features that a majority of their potential customers care about.

If dynamic range was driving purchase decisions for a large segment of the market, camera manufacturers would be trying to maximize dynamic range, even if it caused a loss in other areas (such as resolution). You would also see a wide range in how manufacturers measured dynamic range. This would result in each manufacturer claiming their camera scored better than the competition.

Camera manufacturers do sell on and do improve on and are concerned with dynamic range. Full frame cameras have the highest dynamic range upwards of 15 stops compared to other formats that are hovering in the 11-12 range.

Any pro or anyone concerned with IQ and DR knows the FF cameras have the highest of both.

Medium format cameras have better IQ and DR than FF (35mm).

I don't see where DR is some dismissable concern. It is a concern to users who its a concern to and it's certainly a concern to manufacturers, it's part of the discussion that manufacturers have with their marketplace.

The new OM-1 certainly was marketed with a discussion that it had 1 stop of higher DR. DR is such a concern that a controversy arose out of this because reviewers and testers could not verify any gain of the 1 stop that OMS stated.

DR is certainly discussed and tested for both by the manufacturer and 3rd parties.

I think the OP's question is extremely valid, no need to dismiss it.

 

[SrMi]

I never thought about it but it's a good question. Maybe cameras of the same sensor size are so close that no one cares.

NO ONE CARES???

You're kidding right? Jason you're just to busy creating real work but the average camera nerd spends about half of his conscious time glued to DXO pouring over DR numbers so that their next camera will enable them to RAISE the shadows to levels that look so fake that only others of the same could appreciate the efforts of unreal photography!

Most of the camera nerds I run into are more concerned about image sharpness. I guess we hang out in different circles.

I believe most are concerned about corner sharpness. It's a fetish .

Don't worry, those types are currently busy rooting around under the Xmas tree and unwrapping their new ultra high DR cameras and can't wait to go out and shoot so they can raise the shadows to look like they used flashbulbs.

Don't worry, they'll descend on this topic any minute now to set the record straight!!! Lol

John

The bottom line is that the dynamic range of almost every modern ILC camera is enough for the vast majority of shooters. People who want to absolutely maximize dynamic range are in the minority.

The max dynamic range at base ISO is plenty large, but at high ISOs, there is still a need for more max. DR. Dual conversion gain helped, but the next step will likely be photon counting sensors.

Camera manufacturers are for-profit businesses. This encourages them to focus on features that a majority of their potential customers care about.

If dynamic range was driving purchase decisions for a large segment of the market, camera manufacturers would be trying to maximize dynamic range, even if it caused a loss in other areas (such as resolution). You would also see a wide range in how manufacturers measured dynamic range. This would result in each manufacturer claiming their camera scored better than the competition.

 

[mfinley]

There are a few reasons why manufacturers might not include dynamic range as a standard specification for their products:

Dynamic range can vary depending on the type of signal being processed, so a single value may not be representative of the device's overall performance.

Dynamic range is often related to the quality of the analog-to-digital conversion (ADC) or digital-to-analog conversion (DAC) process, which can be influenced by a number of factors such as the quality of the components and design of the circuitry.

Dynamic range can be affected by external factors such as the quality of the source material, the volume at which the device is being operated, and the acoustics of the listening environment.

There is no industry standard for measuring dynamic range, so different manufacturers may use different methods, making it difficult to compare dynamic range values across different products.

In summary, dynamic range is an important aspect of audio quality, but it can be difficult to measure accurately and may not be representative of a device's overall performance. As a result, manufacturers may choose to focus on other specifications that are easier to measure and compare.

Well....

Somebody is measuring Dynamic Range because you can find it for most cameras.

--
Thanks,
Mike

https://www.travel-curious.com

 

[ggbutcher]

The bottom line is that the dynamic range of almost every modern ILC camera is enough for the vast majority of shooters. People who want to absolutely maximize dynamic range are in the minority.

Camera manufacturers are for-profit businesses. This encourages them to focus on features that a majority of their potential customers care about.

If dynamic range was driving purchase decisions for a large segment of the market, camera manufacturers would be trying to maximize dynamic range, even if it caused a loss in other areas (such as resolution). You would also see a wide range in how manufacturers measured dynamic range. This would result in each manufacturer claiming their camera scored better than the competition.

Camera manufacturers do sell on and do improve on and are concerned with dynamic range. Full frame cameras have the highest dynamic range upwards of 15 stops compared to other formats that are hovering in the 11-12 range.

Any pro or anyone concerned with IQ and DR knows the FF cameras have the highest of both.

I don't see where DR is some dismissable concern. It is a concern to users who its a concern to and it's certainly a concern to manufacturers, it's part of the discussion that manufacturers have with their marketplace.

The new OM-1 certainly was marketed with a discussion that it had 1 stop of higher DR. DR is such a concern that a controversy arose out of this because reviewers and testers could not verify any gain of the 1 stop that OMS stated.

DR is certainly discussed and tested for both by the manufacturer and 3rd parties.

I think the OP's question is extremely valid, no need to dismiss it.

The original question posited by OP is this: "If dynamic range can be measured, why don't manufacturers include it with the rest of specs?" Not whether dynamic range is relevant...

 

[Richard Butler]

Oh, ok But camera companies know how to "increase it". There are physical variables among other things (electronics?) that result in cleaner pictures (in bad light at least) vs cameras from 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago. Thanks

Frustratingly, I've written a couple of short articles that point out that having lots of dynamic range is useful but that a dynamic range value, in isolation, doesn't tell you as much as you might think. (It's not a proxy for image quality). Unfortunately I can't foresee a time when I'll be able to illustrate and publish them.

To your point, some manufacturers are starting to quote approximate DR numbers, sometimes in briefings, sometimes in public-facing marketing materials. Usually they quote figures consistent with the ones DxO's 'Print' values (a 1:1 SNR cut-off, normalized to 8MP).

We hear it discussed more on the video side of things, perhaps because video comes with a fixed output resolution (FHD, UHD 4K, UHD 8K, etc). But it's not always clear whether they're stating the measured DR performance or the DR capacity of their Log curve, regardless of how usable the shadow performance is.

We tend not to quote DR as a number because: a) it's not obvious what it means, visually and b) because it only tells part of the story but risks being interpreted as a measure of IQ.

Richard - DPReview.com

Post edited to state it's DxO's 'Print' value (normalized to 8MP) not its 'Screen' value (which is a pixel-level measurement).

 

[Mako2011]

Well....

Somebody is measuring Dynamic Range because you can find it for most cameras.

That's not necessarily a graph of Dynamic Range. Bills great work measures Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) ...a term he developed and it's not the same as as the Dynamic Range numbers you see from DXOMARK or when using a backlit DCS labs DR chart or the like. All great stuff when used for the intended purpose.

A sensors Dynamic range is often defined as the ratio between the brightest and darkest tones of a scene that a sensor can capture. The DR capability of the OM-1 is greater than the PDR number we see.

--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

 

[CarmelSoul]

Because it's easier to beat a dead horse like the megapixel myth. Just sayin.

 

[Supisiche]

Oh, ok But camera companies know how to "increase it". There are physical variables among other things (electronics?) that result in cleaner pictures (in bad light at least) vs cameras from 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago. Thanks

Frustratingly, I've written a couple of short articles that point out that having lots of dynamic range is useful but that a dynamic range value, in isolation, doesn't tell you as much as you might think. (It's not a proxy for image quality). Unfortunately I can't foresee a time when I'll be able to illustrate and publish them.

To your point, some manufacturers are starting to quote approximate DR numbers, sometimes in briefings, sometimes in public-facing marketing materials. Usually they quote figures consistent with the ones DxO's 'screen' values (a 1:1 SNR cut-off, normalized to 8MP).

We hear it discussed more on the video side of things, perhaps because video comes with a fixed output resolution (FHD, UHD 4K, UHD 8K, etc). But it's not always clear whether they're stating the measured DR performance or the DR capacity of their Log curve, regardless of how usable the shadow performance is.

We tend not to quote DR as a number because: a) it's not obvious what it means, visually and b) because it only tells part of the story but risks being interpreted as a measure of IQ.

Richard - DPReview.com

Thanks. IQ is more than the sum of it's parts (?)

 

[All Bushs Fault]

Well....

Somebody is measuring Dynamic Range because you can find it for most cameras.

A sensors Dynamic range is often defined as the ratio between the brightest and darkest tones of a scene that a sensor can capture. The DR capability of the OM-1 is greater than the PDR number we see.

Is this difference the difference between the theoretical DR and the actual use?

 

[jerry1]

Because it's easier to beat a dead horse like the megapixel myth. Just sayin.

What is the megapixel myth you speak of?

 

[FrancoD]

Because it's easier to beat a dead horse like the megapixel myth. Just sayin.

What is the megapixel myth you speak of?

Someone had started a rumour about Hasselblad coming out with 5 mm square pixels .

 

[Mako2011]

Is this difference the difference between the theoretical DR and the actual use?

I see it as ...two different uses. An apples to orange kind of difference. DR, for me gives me an idea of how far I might push at base ISO in specific scenarios with a specific camera... while PDR gives me a more model to model comparison under less extreme conditions. But that's how I use it. Very thankful for Bill's work

 

[jerry1]

Because it's easier to beat a dead horse like the megapixel myth. Just sayin.

What is the megapixel myth you speak of?

Someone had started a rumour about Hasselblad coming out with 5 mm square pixels .

Thanks. I'm not very tech oriented so was curious. Guess I should study more. Thanks again.

 

[All Bushs Fault]

Because it's easier to beat a dead horse like the megapixel myth. Just sayin.

Do you mean the MP myth that 6 MPs is all one ever needs? Or that MPs is marketing? Or that MPs is only needed for billboards?

 

[Michael Fryd]

Because it's easier to beat a dead horse like the megapixel myth. Just sayin.

Do you mean the MP myth that 6 MPs is all one ever needs? Or that MPs is marketing? Or that MPs is only needed for billboards?

Actually 12 megapixels is enough for a billboard. This is evident from the billboards Apple used to run featuring photos taken on iPhones.

It turns out that billboards are viewed from a large distances. At 50 feet, the human eye won't resolve more than about 12 pixels per inch. At 160 feet it's down to around 4 pixels inch.

A 3000x4000 pixel (12 megapixel) image is just fine for a 21 x 28 foot billboard that will be viewed from over 50 feet away.

 

[All Bushs Fault]

Because it's easier to beat a dead horse like the megapixel myth. Just sayin.

Do you mean the MP myth that 6 MPs is all one ever needs? Or that MPs is marketing? Or that MPs is only needed for billboards?

Actually 12 megapixels is enough for a billboard. This is evident from the billboards Apple used to run featuring photos taken on iPhones.

It turns out that billboards are viewed from a large distances. At 50 feet, the human eye won't resolve more than about 12 pixels per inch. At 160 feet it's down to around 4 pixels inch.

A 3000x4000 pixel (12 megapixel) image is just fine for a 21 x 28 foot billboard that will be viewed from over 50 feet away.

aka a myth.

 

[D Cox]

Is this difference the difference between the theoretical DR and the actual use?

I see it as ...two different uses. An apples to orange kind of difference. DR, for me gives me an idea of how far I might push at base ISO in specific scenarios with a specific camera... while PDR gives me a more model to model comparison under less extreme conditions. But that's how I use it. Very thankful for Bill's work

So am I. The graphs are most useful for comparing cameras (which is usually what we want) rather than absolute measurements.

Don

 

[Mako2011]

So am I. The graphs are most useful for comparing cameras (which is usually what we want) rather than absolute measurements.

I also have used them when I look at a set and wonder what the ISO is doing or if there might be some hidden NR. A great resource

 

[FrancoD]

Because it's easier to beat a dead horse like the megapixel myth. Just sayin.

What is the megapixel myth you speak of?

Someone had started a rumour about Hasselblad coming out with 5 mm square pixels .

Thanks. I'm not very tech oriented so was curious. Guess I should study more. Thanks again.

Sorry. It was a nerd joke based on mega (huge) pixels, the size of Hasselblad cameras and a reference to their square look and format .

 

[h00ligan]

Sorry; are you looking for camera manufacturers to list the stops of dynamic range?



probably go the way of battery stats wouldn’t it. We get 19 stops (small print) when photographing in a lab, with 4 stop under exposure, introducing noise on uplift, and the moon is out, when the cat meows)