Why is there no progress Dynamic range?

[aSevenArr]

Since the Sony a7rii in 2015, there has been no revolutionary improvement in dynamic range. Will it always be like this? Not everyone needs a very fast camera, the improvements have always been in speed.

It's really about what sells cameras which for years now has been more megapixels (not because we need more but because people think that they need more).

And camera marketing has been all about more megapixels for the most part.

But improving dynamic range is completely at odds with making the individual pixels smaller and more densely packed on the sensor.

But yes.. I personally think that dynamic range is more important. We have long ago had enough megapixels.

 

[UncleVanya]

Since the Sony a7rii in 2015, there has been no revolutionary improvement in dynamic range. Will it always be like this? Not everyone needs a very fast camera, the improvements have always been in speed.

It's really about what sells cameras which for years now has been more megapixels (not because we need more but because people think that they need more).

And camera marketing has been all about more megapixels for the most part.

But improving dynamic range is completely at odds with making the individual pixels smaller and more densely packed on the sensor.

But yes.. I personally think that dynamic range is more important. We have long ago had enough megapixels.

Even the mp wars have stalled out. 45-61mp is the top of the ff pile. 24-33 is the standard pile. And apsc is 24-26 save for Fuji - an outlier at 40.

Speed, ai, global shitters, this is where advances have been. Look at a7r II vs a7r v. Modest mp increase 42-61. But massive change in operational speed, focusing, and EVF resolution. The former is more than ten years old.

 

[Hotel Lonely]

Since the Sony a7rii in 2015, there has been no revolutionary improvement in dynamic range. Will it always be like this? Not everyone needs a very fast camera, the improvements have always been in speed.

It's really about what sells cameras which for years now has been more megapixels (not because we need more but because people think that they need more).

And camera marketing has been all about more megapixels for the most part.

But improving dynamic range is completely at odds with making the individual pixels smaller and more densely packed on the sensor.

But yes.. I personally think that dynamic range is more important. We have long ago had enough megapixels.

The problem with increasing dynamic range is that the physical limit is right there, there's nothing more we can do to increase the dynamic range without sacrificing significantly on other things. Speed on the other hand, helps to mitigate those sacrifices and can make it easier to do hdr shots.

 

[GarysInSoCal]

It's really about what sells cameras which for years now has been more megapixels (not because we need more but because people think that they need more).

But yes.. I personally think that dynamic range is more important. We have long ago had enough megapixels.

BINGO... in agreement on these 2 points. Been shooting digital images for 20+ years. The information up there rings true... ;-)

 

[Interceptor121]

Since the Sony a7rii in 2015, there has been no revolutionary improvement in dynamic range. Will it always be like this? Not everyone needs a very fast camera, the improvements have always been in speed.

It's really about what sells cameras which for years now has been more megapixels (not because we need more but because people think that they need more).

And camera marketing has been all about more megapixels for the most part.

But improving dynamic range is completely at odds with making the individual pixels smaller and more densely packed on the sensor.

But yes.. I personally think that dynamic range is more important. We have long ago had enough megapixels.

Thats a misconception as the best sensor in terms of IQ and DR have actually lots of pixels

Unless pixels are really tiny pixel size does not matter when you compare images at same physical size

Looking at Sony sensor range it is true that the 33 megapixel has a bit more DR however it drops in color depth compared to 60 megapixel which at the end provides the best overall IQ

One thing that is true is that back illuminated sensor at present give higher DR than stacked sensor all the stuff on pixel size is non sense

More resolution is a good thing

--
If you like my image I would appreciate if you follow me on social media
instagram http://instagram.com/interceptor121
My flickr sets http://www.flickr.com/photos/interceptor121/
Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/interceptor121
Underwater Photo and Video Blog http://interceptor121.com
If you want to get in touch don't send me a PM rather contact me directly at my website/social media

 

[A74Me]

Since the Sony a7rii in 2015, there has been no revolutionary improvement in dynamic range. Will it always be like this? Not everyone needs a very fast camera, the improvements have always been in speed.

It's really about what sells cameras which for years now has been more megapixels (not because we need more but because people think that they need more).

And camera marketing has been all about more megapixels for the most part.

But improving dynamic range is completely at odds with making the individual pixels smaller and more densely packed on the sensor.

But yes.. I personally think that dynamic range is more important. We have long ago had enough megapixels.

Thats a misconception as the best sensor in terms of IQ and DR have actually lots of pixels

Unless pixels are really tiny pixel size does not matter when you compare images at same physical size

Looking at Sony sensor range it is true that the 33 megapixel has a bit more DR however it drops in color depth compared to 60 megapixel which at the end provides the best overall IQ

One thing that is true is that back illuminated sensor at present give higher DR than stacked sensor all the stuff on pixel size is non sense

More resolution is a good thing

it was proved years ago with the a7s2 vers the a7s3 with all else equal. all the review sites were running to the hills after this information was found to be true. that the s3 had 48mpixels binned vers 12 LARGE mpixels

 

[Interceptor121]

Since the Sony a7rii in 2015, there has been no revolutionary improvement in dynamic range. Will it always be like this? Not everyone needs a very fast camera, the improvements have always been in speed.

It's really about what sells cameras which for years now has been more megapixels (not because we need more but because people think that they need more).

And camera marketing has been all about more megapixels for the most part.

But improving dynamic range is completely at odds with making the individual pixels smaller and more densely packed on the sensor.

But yes.. I personally think that dynamic range is more important. We have long ago had enough megapixels.

Thats a misconception as the best sensor in terms of IQ and DR have actually lots of pixels

Unless pixels are really tiny pixel size does not matter when you compare images at same physical size

Looking at Sony sensor range it is true that the 33 megapixel has a bit more DR however it drops in color depth compared to 60 megapixel which at the end provides the best overall IQ

One thing that is true is that back illuminated sensor at present give higher DR than stacked sensor all the stuff on pixel size is non sense

More resolution is a good thing

it was proved years ago with the a7s2 vers the a7s3 with all else equal. all the review sites were running to the hills after this information was found to be true. that the s3 had 48mpixels binned vers 12 LARGE mpixels

Nope a single example where the construction is actually different proves nothing

Pixel size does not matter only sensor size and construction influence output

Too many pixels take time to read this is currently the limitation...

--
If you like my image I would appreciate if you follow me on social media
instagram http://instagram.com/interceptor121
My flickr sets http://www.flickr.com/photos/interceptor121/
Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/interceptor121
Underwater Photo and Video Blog http://interceptor121.com
If you want to get in touch don't send me a PM rather contact me directly at my website/social media

 

[Bassman2003]

Since the Sony a7rii in 2015, there has been no revolutionary improvement in dynamic range. Will it always be like this? Not everyone needs a very fast camera, the improvements have always been in speed.

It's really about what sells cameras which for years now has been more megapixels (not because we need more but because people think that they need more).

And camera marketing has been all about more megapixels for the most part.

But improving dynamic range is completely at odds with making the individual pixels smaller and more densely packed on the sensor.

But yes.. I personally think that dynamic range is more important. We have long ago had enough megapixels.

The problem with increasing dynamic range is that the physical limit is right there, there's nothing more we can do to increase the dynamic range without sacrificing significantly on other things. Speed on the other hand, helps to mitigate those sacrifices and can make it easier to do hdr shots.

I think this is a challenge for the camera makers isn't it? I am not sure what you mean about "the physical limit is right there". What limit - the real world or what we have now in camera sensors?

It seems to me the industry has at least 5 stops of DR to add before equaling what I see with my eyes. I know human vision has it own 'tricks' but seriously, we are using cameras to represent the world and the digital ones are still struggling with a lot of scenes imho.

 

[RealWorldPhoto]

It seems to me the industry has at least 5 stops of DR to add before equaling what I see with my eyes. I know human vision has it own 'tricks' but seriously, we are using cameras to represent the world and the digital ones are still struggling with a lot of scenes imho.

Confusing photographs with what is depicted is quite common. Photograps are not reality, they are representations. We read images very differently from how we physically see the outside world.

Good luck with making photographs with the same tonal range that human vision is able to sense.

 

[Interceptor121]

Since the Sony a7rii in 2015, there has been no revolutionary improvement in dynamic range. Will it always be like this? Not everyone needs a very fast camera, the improvements have always been in speed.

It's really about what sells cameras which for years now has been more megapixels (not because we need more but because people think that they need more).

And camera marketing has been all about more megapixels for the most part.

But improving dynamic range is completely at odds with making the individual pixels smaller and more densely packed on the sensor.

But yes.. I personally think that dynamic range is more important. We have long ago had enough megapixels.

The problem with increasing dynamic range is that the physical limit is right there, there's nothing more we can do to increase the dynamic range without sacrificing significantly on other things. Speed on the other hand, helps to mitigate those sacrifices and can make it easier to do hdr shots.

I think this is a challenge for the camera makers isn't it? I am not sure what you mean about "the physical limit is right there". What limit - the real world or what we have now in camera sensors?
It seems to me the industry has at least 5 stops of DR to add before equaling what I see with my eyes. I know human vision has it own 'tricks' but seriously, we are using cameras to represent the world and the digital ones are still struggling with a lot of scenes imho.

This is a myth

The human eye focuses properly on a very narrow field of view the rest is reconstructed by the brain and is not sharp at all

Even the story of the 20 stops of dynamic range is not true at night the camera sees the stars better then you and in bright sun you cant actually look at the sunball without going blind

What the human eye can see is a total of 30 stops but NOT in the same scene

https://wolfcrow.com/what-is-the-dynamic-range-of-the-human-eye/

Decent description so the eye dynamic range when looking at a well lit scene is actually on par or lower than the camera aka 13 stops

--
If you like my image I would appreciate if you follow me on social media
instagram http://instagram.com/interceptor121
My flickr sets http://www.flickr.com/photos/interceptor121/
Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/interceptor121
Underwater Photo and Video Blog http://interceptor121.com
If you want to get in touch don't send me a PM rather contact me directly at my website/social media

 

[Bassman2003]

It seems to me the industry has at least 5 stops of DR to add before equaling what I see with my eyes. I know human vision has it own 'tricks' but seriously, we are using cameras to represent the world and the digital ones are still struggling with a lot of scenes imho.

Confusing photographs with what is depicted is quite common. Photograps are not reality, they are representations. We read images very differently from how we physically see the outside world.

Good luck with making photographs with the same tonal range that human vision is able to sense.

I do not think your reply applies to my post. Sorry, but this goes beyond the tech view. Take a shot with a modern digital camera, expose for the bright sky and deliver without any post processing or tone mapping in-camera. Tell me this does not have room for improvement...

 

[Bassman2003]

Since the Sony a7rii in 2015, there has been no revolutionary improvement in dynamic range. Will it always be like this? Not everyone needs a very fast camera, the improvements have always been in speed.

It's really about what sells cameras which for years now has been more megapixels (not because we need more but because people think that they need more).

And camera marketing has been all about more megapixels for the most part.

But improving dynamic range is completely at odds with making the individual pixels smaller and more densely packed on the sensor.

But yes.. I personally think that dynamic range is more important. We have long ago had enough megapixels.

The problem with increasing dynamic range is that the physical limit is right there, there's nothing more we can do to increase the dynamic range without sacrificing significantly on other things. Speed on the other hand, helps to mitigate those sacrifices and can make it easier to do hdr shots.

I think this is a challenge for the camera makers isn't it? I am not sure what you mean about "the physical limit is right there". What limit - the real world or what we have now in camera sensors?
It seems to me the industry has at least 5 stops of DR to add before equaling what I see with my eyes. I know human vision has it own 'tricks' but seriously, we are using cameras to represent the world and the digital ones are still struggling with a lot of scenes imho.

This is a myth

The human eye focuses properly on a very narrow field of view the rest is reconstructed by the brain and is not sharp at all

Even the story of the 20 stops of dynamic range is not true at night the camera sees the stars better then you and in bright sun you cant actually look at the sunball without going blind

What the human eye can see is a total of 30 stops but NOT in the same scene

https://wolfcrow.com/what-is-the-dynamic-range-of-the-human-eye/

Decent description so the eye dynamic range when looking at a well lit scene is actually on par or lower than the camera aka 13 stops

I appreciate your views. While not technically wrong, you can't tell me what I see. When I look at a scene in real life I have decide how I am going to skew it to 'help' my modern expensive camera to try to represent it. The stops or contrast ratio is there. I am just pointing out that the digital cameras are not up to the task to represent it on their own.

I would like to see the makers improve upon this as I get back from travelling and find myself lifting shadows like body builder. I have been doing this for years and I would like to see a better outcome.

 

[RealWorldPhoto]

It seems to me the industry has at least 5 stops of DR to add before equaling what I see with my eyes. I know human vision has it own 'tricks' but seriously, we are using cameras to represent the world and the digital ones are still struggling with a lot of scenes imho.

Confusing photographs with what is depicted is quite common. Photograps are not reality, they are representations. We read images very differently from how we physically see the outside world.

Good luck with making photographs with the same tonal range that human vision is able to sense.

I do not think your reply applies to my post. Sorry, but this goes beyond the tech view. Take a shot with a modern digital camera, expose for the bright sky and deliver without any post processing or tone mapping in-camera. Tell me this does not have room for improvement...

My comment here is about how we deal with the final results, the photographs. This is what all the tech leads to.

Your idea that images straight out-of-the-camera, with extended dynamic range and no processing, should look like we visually perceive the world has nothing with reality to do.

Just calculate how many stop of dynamic range that is needed in general, and how much shadow detail that is left as pure black for almost all your files. For a white dressed bride and a black dressed groom you need five stop, and a few extra stop for shadow detail. On overcast days you need even less dynamic range.

 

[Interceptor121]

Since the Sony a7rii in 2015, there has been no revolutionary improvement in dynamic range. Will it always be like this? Not everyone needs a very fast camera, the improvements have always been in speed.

It's really about what sells cameras which for years now has been more megapixels (not because we need more but because people think that they need more).

And camera marketing has been all about more megapixels for the most part.

But improving dynamic range is completely at odds with making the individual pixels smaller and more densely packed on the sensor.

But yes.. I personally think that dynamic range is more important. We have long ago had enough megapixels.

The problem with increasing dynamic range is that the physical limit is right there, there's nothing more we can do to increase the dynamic range without sacrificing significantly on other things. Speed on the other hand, helps to mitigate those sacrifices and can make it easier to do hdr shots.

I think this is a challenge for the camera makers isn't it? I am not sure what you mean about "the physical limit is right there". What limit - the real world or what we have now in camera sensors?
It seems to me the industry has at least 5 stops of DR to add before equaling what I see with my eyes. I know human vision has it own 'tricks' but seriously, we are using cameras to represent the world and the digital ones are still struggling with a lot of scenes imho.

This is a myth

The human eye focuses properly on a very narrow field of view the rest is reconstructed by the brain and is not sharp at all

Even the story of the 20 stops of dynamic range is not true at night the camera sees the stars better then you and in bright sun you cant actually look at the sunball without going blind

What the human eye can see is a total of 30 stops but NOT in the same scene

https://wolfcrow.com/what-is-the-dynamic-range-of-the-human-eye/

Decent description so the eye dynamic range when looking at a well lit scene is actually on par or lower than the camera aka 13 stops

I appreciate your views. While not technically wrong, you can't tell me what I see. When I look at a scene in real life I have decide how I am going to skew it to 'help' my modern expensive camera to try to represent it. The stops or contrast ratio is there. I am just pointing out that the digital cameras are not up to the task to represent it on their own.

I would like to see the makers improve upon this as I get back from travelling and find myself lifting shadows like body builder. I have been doing this for years and I would like to see a better outcome.

Your eyes have less DR than your full frame camera at frame level

The fact that you can look outside the window in one second then look in the shade and looks clear has nothing to do with your eyes but with your brain that has kept in memory the other scene

Your brain is building HDR mosaics by collating small parts where your eye can focus the whole image exists only in your mind your eyes did not see it

At night when is dark your eyes have 8-9 stops totally monochrome sight and this is why you cant see the color of the northern lights while your camera can it has more DR than your eyes and there are no tricks of composing scenes

The DR of camera is totally adequate one thing to improve are display as clearly paper with its limited tonal depth cant compete. Current gamma compressed displays at best can show 10 stops sometimes less

A screen with contrast ratio of 10000:1 like a good OLED has more DR than your eye already but not your computer screen running windows or mac os. Macbook with XDR displays have peak 10000000:1 more than your eye can see but not your desktop display unless you spend a fortune

--
If you like my image I would appreciate if you follow me on social media
instagram http://instagram.com/interceptor121
My flickr sets http://www.flickr.com/photos/interceptor121/
Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/interceptor121
Underwater Photo and Video Blog http://interceptor121.com
If you want to get in touch don't send me a PM rather contact me directly at my website/social media

 

[RealWorldPhoto]

At night when is dark your eyes have 8-9 stops totally monochrome sight and this is why you cant see the color of the northern lights while your camera can it has more DR than your eyes and there are no tricks of composing scenes

Good info. Just a note: I don't know how used you are with observing polar light, but the aurora is bright enough to trigger color perception. We can easily see green, sometimes red and seldom blue color when it is playing bright over the sky.

 

[Interceptor121]

At night when is dark your eyes have 8-9 stops totally monochrome sight and this is why you cant see the color of the northern lights while your camera can it has more DR than your eyes and there are no tricks of composing scenes

Good info. Just a note: I don't know how used you are with observing polar light, but the aurora is bright enough to trigger color perception. We can easily see green, sometimes red and seldom blue color when it is playing bright over the sky.

not easily at all

Purple maybe green not really. Majority of people see monochrome hence everybody goes around with mobile phones even those do a better job

If everyone was seeing it at naked eye this would not occur

I have seen northern lights in 3 countries and never my eye was better than a camera including a mobile let alone full frame cameras

 

[RealWorldPhoto]

At night when is dark your eyes have 8-9 stops totally monochrome sight and this is why you cant see the color of the northern lights while your camera can it has more DR than your eyes and there are no tricks of composing scenes

Good info. Just a note: I don't know how used you are with observing polar light, but the aurora is bright enough to trigger color perception. We can easily see green, sometimes red and seldom blue color when it is playing bright over the sky.

not easily at all

Purple maybe green not really. Majority of people see monochrome hence everybody goes around with mobile phones even those do a better job

If everyone was seeing it at naked eye this would not occur

I have seen northern lights in 3 countries and never my eye was better than a camera including a mobile let alone full frame cameras

I live under the polar light. At my location we pretty often have aurora. When the polar light is bright, colors are obvious. Not like camera color, but obvious.

 

[Interceptor121]

At night when is dark your eyes have 8-9 stops totally monochrome sight and this is why you cant see the color of the northern lights while your camera can it has more DR than your eyes and there are no tricks of composing scenes

Good info. Just a note: I don't know how used you are with observing polar light, but the aurora is bright enough to trigger color perception. We can easily see green, sometimes red and seldom blue color when it is playing bright over the sky.

not easily at all

Purple maybe green not really. Majority of people see monochrome hence everybody goes around with mobile phones even those do a better job

If everyone was seeing it at naked eye this would not occur

I have seen northern lights in 3 countries and never my eye was better than a camera including a mobile let alone full frame cameras

I live under the polar light. At my location we pretty often have aurora. When the polar light is bright, colors are obvious. Not like camera color, but obvious.

So you agree with me that your camera has more DR and color sensitivity than your eyes

People should read a bit deeper into things not go for stereotypes

I want more DR just like my eye except my eye cant compete with my camera in most scenes

I want more DR so i can see more details except my screen does not snow them anyway let alone print

Lots of whining for very little

 

[RealWorldPhoto]

I live under the polar light. At my location we pretty often have aurora. When the polar light is bright, colors are obvious. Not like camera color, but obvious.

So you agree with me that your camera has more DR and color sensitivity than your eyes

Have I claimed otherwise? Visual perception is brainwork and memory. Scanning the surroundings with our eyes is just to collect data for the brain to create what we see.

People should read a bit deeper into things not go for stereotypes

I want more DR just like my eye except my eye cant compete with my camera in most scenes

I want more DR so i can see more details except my screen does not snow them anyway let alone print

Lots of whining for very little

Confusing photographs with reality is common even among photographers.

 

[Bassman2003]

I do not care about the actual perceived or real numbers from our eyes or our cameras. All I know is that my eyes do a lot better job dealing with high contrast ratio/HDR scenes than my cameras. The cameras could do with some improvement. For some reason folks on this thread are happy with the status quo. Others' had this opinion on this website back when cameras had 8-9 stops of DR...

I know how to deal with it in camera and in post. The point of the conversation is to hope to not have to deal with it in future cameras.