Reading mode: Light Dark

S3 Important discoveries !!

Go to last post
acrystalball said:
Hi Zara,
I used another image, one with not as much contrast or DR, and HOLY
SMOKES the detail resolution in the +2.5 EV shot, after PP was
amazing. The R pixel +2.5 image was the best of the Rs. I used text
and woodgrain in the image for examining detail. I'm going to run
the test again, making sure I use the same parameters, and then
post the results. It is kind of unbelievable.

The only thing was that the S pixel colors were washed out, and I
don't know how to recover it. The S pixel 0 EV was way better
colorwise.

So could I theoretically blend the S pixel image from the O EV and
the R pixel image from the +2.5 EV in PS, and get a vastly superior
image? Or is there some way to extract properly satuarated colors
in overexposed images?
Click to expand...
Sure you can do that, but the whole point of the S3 sensor is that you can get in one shot all the goodies, the thing is to find that key exposure that balance S&R nicely.
acrystalball said:
This has been fun, thanks for posting your theory.
Click to expand...
You are welcome Crystal.!

--
 
I can only see one sample.
The other images link is broken.

Please see what I did last night.
I just posted some samples down in this thread.

--
 
and something very different happens...although the 0 EV has less detail, it certainly has more than converting it in S7... and the +1 and +2.5 have less noise (and slightly less detail), I think due to the noise reduction that Micky said took place during HU conversion.
--
http://treehuggergirl.zenfolio.com/
 
I tried HU also with different results.
HU use of the SR pixels is different of S7RAW.

With HU there is no control of the SR mix other than that silly "Dinamic Range" slider.

Remember also that the raw settings you use have a big impact on the final images.

For this type of exposures I found S7RAW to work best using the EasyMode Mix with the slider set to 100.

Also in S7RAW remember to set the sharpness to 3 or 6 and uncheck the moire reduction.
I think S7RAW default to soft detail.

Anyways, the point is that increasing the exposure have good benefits.
It put those lazy R pixels to work ;)
I guess you have to find what works best for your camera.
Perhaps is +1EV, as Leo said.

I think that is also important to realize that this overexposure trick might be subject dependent, so it probaly varies as an optimum setting.

More test from others will be great to confirm all this stuff.

Thanks for your tests and good night, Crystal
:)
acrystalball said:
and something very different happens...although the 0 EV has less
detail, it certainly has more than converting it in S7... and the
+1 and +2.5 have less noise (and slightly less detail), I think due
to the noise reduction that Micky said took place during HU
conversion.
--
http://treehuggergirl.zenfolio.com/
Click to expand...
--
 
Even though, I started by using s7raw, I have slowly been converting into an HU believer.

I think that HU + overexposure will do most of what Crystal and Zarathustra have done but with significantly less effort. Here is an example:
http://isidore.meaobiterdictum.com/data_repository/DSCF0443_1.jpg

It was shot at ISO 800, using a handheld S3 (hence the softness), natural light, extension tubes + Nikon 50mm/F.18. More importantly, it was intentionally overexposed by +1.5 stops.

BTW, if you feel like experimenting, deselect "simple" mixing for S+R in with s7raw and start fiddling with the formula that combines S+R -- you can get some interesting looking outputs.

Isidore
 
Isidore, thanks for the info.

I just rendered my test shots with HU and compared.

Here is the scoop:

1. The +2EV shoot was still the best, and the +3EV was impossible to handle. Now the 0EV comes closer to the +2EV in resolution, but much noiser.

2. HU gave me Jpeg artifacts or Crazy pixels (don't know how to call it), even with Fine Jpeg and Soft sharpening.
4. HU was harder to deal with proper WB, the shadows have some color cast.
5. The pruple fringing is more evident with HU.
6. HU was a tiny winny bit extra of resolution.

7. HU have less noise than S7RAW, but I rendered the S7 file with no noise reduction. Probably S7RAW can match it, not sure. I'd tend to think that the NR algorithms in HU are more sophisticated. But I usually disain NR.
8. HU specular highlights were more harsh, having more of that digital look.

When the total photo was compared as a PHOTO, IOW no pixel peeping. I found the S7RAW rendering more pleasent to look at.

I have been an intermitent HU believer too, but I think S7RAW gives me more flexibility and is free.

The biggest HU no-no is the WB issue and the Purple fringing.

Conclusion: HU vs S7RAW both have their Pros and Cons.
The only sure thing is that shooting for overexposure give the best results.

PS. Is hard also to compare when we have different cameras.
But I'm glad I found that my findings were right, and can get that extra
quality by overexposing.

Thanks everyone !
Isidore said:
Even though, I started by using s7raw, I have slowly been
converting into an HU believer.

I think that HU + overexposure will do most of what Crystal and
Zarathustra have done but with significantly less effort. Here is
an example:
http://isidore.meaobiterdictum.com/data_repository/DSCF0443_1.jpg

It was shot at ISO 800, using a handheld S3 (hence the softness),
natural light, extension tubes + Nikon 50mm/F.18. More
importantly, it was intentionally overexposed by +1.5 stops.

BTW, if you feel like experimenting, deselect "simple" mixing for
S+R in with s7raw and start fiddling with the formula that combines
S+R -- you can get some interesting looking outputs.

Isidore
Click to expand...
--
 
What an amazing technique - just tried it on some potraits of my son and wife - and wow - it is a substantial increase in resolution IMO, low noise too.

I can't see it working in all situations - but great in some :)

Mark.
 
What an amazing technique - just tried it on some potraits of my son and wife - and wow - it is a substantial increase in resolution IMO, low noise too.
I can't see it working in all situations - but great in some :)

Mark.
 
The F700 by design only used the S pixels in jpg. It only used the full sensor in RAW. No secret here. The S3 uses the full sensor in jpg.
 
Seems to work for me though ....

this was taken at ISO 800, 18-70 lens, F8, run through CS2 RAW Converter, shot was taken at +2eV, then compensated in Photoshop. Looks amazing detail to me + very low noise, this is a 100% crop

 
The two sets of sensors, R and S, have nothing to do with resoltion, only with dynamic range. If you're underexposing, the noise will interfere with perceived resolution (noise is definitely a function of resolution). That is why, no matter what the camera, to always expose as far to right of the histogram as possible, without overexposing. This way, you get more dynamic range where it counts, at the bottom, where there is very little date devoted to shadow areas. That's the way digital works. The extra set of sensors help achieve dynamic range, nothing more. Resolution may appear greater when you expose more carefully, because you're recording more USABLE data, but not more resolution. One big help for better resolution is better lenses. Use the very best lenses you can for digital. Crappy lenses really show, sometimes very badly. A great lens always shines.
 
Wow Crystal & Zarathustra for posting your results, and expounding on this technique. It is wonderful to know!

Sincerely,
Huy (sounds like "we")
 
Crystal,
acrystalball said:
Sorry the images are so big but I wanted y'all to easily see the
difference.
Click to expand...
To me it looks like your second image suffers from a lot of motion blur. To see what I mean, look at what Focus Magic "Motion Blur" filter can do with a little trial and error to find the best angle and radius to correct it (it could be further improved with a little more patience):



The first image seems to have some blur caused by camera shake as well, but seems to be a little out of focus too.

Can you redo your tests with a tripod and manual focus (or lock focus after autofocusing), just to be sure there are no focus or movement-induced blur difference between the images?

Thanks,

Marcos
 
Mr. Shullinger, have you seen this SR sensor illustration ?
F700 (Left) S3 (Right).



As you can see, the R pixel in the S3 is like another pixel, occupying an exclusive space in the sensor, just like any other photosite, but with less sensitivity.

If you make them active by overexposure they will contribute with more resolution and less noise.

In addition this should be even more true for the S3 than the F700 due that the F700 SR sensor share the same microlens for each SR pair.

Theories aside, even having a shared microlens I can see from my tests the improvement in resolution and noise.

The idea is to take the exposure in which both S & R grab the detail and overlap in the area of the image you need the extra detail.

I don't need to argue with you about this.
Download S7RAW, do your test, the true is right there.
Shullinger said:
The two sets of sensors, R and S, have nothing to do with
resoltion, only with dynamic range. If you're underexposing, the
noise will interfere with perceived resolution (noise is definitely
a function of resolution). That is why, no matter what the camera,
to always expose as far to right of the histogram as possible,
without overexposing. This way, you get more dynamic range where it
counts, at the bottom, where there is very little date devoted to
shadow areas. That's the way digital works. The extra set of
sensors help achieve dynamic range, nothing more. Resolution may
appear greater when you expose more carefully, because you're
recording more USABLE data, but not more resolution. One big help
for better resolution is better lenses. Use the very best lenses
you can for digital. Crappy lenses really show, sometimes very
badly. A great lens always shines.
Click to expand...
--
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top