HumanTarget

I wasn't thinking at a very technical level, really; just about the fact that detecting saturation, updating the "saturation counter," and resetting the pixel is not an instantaneous eve nt. So ...

As others have pointed out, the concept is not new and has been attempted with numerous variations. The drawback to any such solution is that it's based on multiple exposures (per-pixel in this ...

WYSIWYG is impossible when using flash (which I do as often as not), and I tend to adjust the tone curves afterwards anyhow, so that's not a big selling point for me. And even if a screen is high ...

An OVF comes to mind.

That's not what I meant, but as I seem to be unable to clearly state my point, I think it'd be best for me to just drop it.

Of  course they represent different things. But obviously an exposure measurement can be converted into a perceptual lightness, so if a particular conversion process was mandated by specification, ...

Photos can look different depending on the ambient light. The same could be said of audio. Depending on the volume I play it at or what the ambient noise is, it can sound very different. I don't. ...

You can't tell what color the original wall was from the resulting JPEG, either. That's sort of my point; it's the lack of a standard for what the raw values should represent. It's not an issue of ...

I don't see a problem with representing a photograph by measurements of luminous energy. A digital audio recording is just measurements of sound, after all.

Taken as a whole, they represent the image projected onto the sensor, don't they? I think the main thing is that raw files have no standard for interpretation of the data.

I guess it depends on what you mean by huge, very heavy, and extremely expensive. The Tamron 16-300mm (18.8x zoom) is $599 and weighs 1.19lbs, which isn't so bad compared to other DSLR lenses. Of ...

Also, don't forget about Adobe's DNG format, which was created to standardize raw files.

Why would you expect them to be standardized? And standardizing would be a good way to ensure they couldn't switch to a more efficient compression.

The raw files are already losslessly compressed.

There is always going to be noise because light itself is "noisy," and the lower the light level, the noisier the resulting image will look.

???

Not the same thing, really. The better the technology gets, the less pixel size matters. However, the difference between FF and APS-C would remain even with perfect sensors, since the FF sensor is ...

What are you talking about? The A7rIII at ISO 12800 is very noticeably much cleaner than the A7III at ISO 25600. Yeah, I'm more in agreement than disagreement with you. I just think the double ...

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Here's my assessment of the example you provided: The A7 III looks to have a slight edge over the A7R III in the deepest blacks, but it's nowhere near 1 stop, ...

Again, I think your views don't mesh with reality. You also seem to be forgetting that noise reduction works better with more data. But obviously we disagree here. I get the impression you think ...