Who said Canon cameras suck?!?

[nightbreath]

I argue about this because the entire notion of "Print DR" is assumptive, misleading, and attempts to nail down a specific result in a world (the world of print) that has thousands of potential final output options...

It's strange that they haven't yet applied some noise reduction algorithm to the test images  Oh, wait! New sensors from Canon produce images that are easier to clean up at high ISOs, so that won't work for them very well 

Seriously, I believe that knowing the fact that 35mm DSLRs are rated much better than medium format cameras is enough to stop looking at DXO ratings anymore.

[Quasimodo]

I have spent two days reading about DR and complicated stuff here. I have found this thread interesting, and one of the main reasons I keep coming here, is that although I think some people here confuse the ball and the person, the level of knowledge and genuine interest for both technical and artistic aspects is amazing.
I took a shot today on my way home after picking the kids up in the kindergarten, and I don't know why I thought of this thread.

[elflord]

Perhaps we are on different pages. Once an image is digitized, its digitized. It has a fixed bit depth. In the case of modern DSLR's, the 14-bit output of a RAW is fixed,

The part that you seem to not quite get here is that if you have a noise level of "8" and your scale goes from 1-16384, you don't really have 16384 distinct levels in your output  signal.  Nor do you have 16384 - 8 levels. You have 16384 / 8 levels (2048).

however since it is in the "lower order bits", or in the darkest tonal levels of an image, the gain is minima
. Were not talking about a huge difference overall, we are talking about a very small difference overall.

I don't think you understood my previous post. Losing the lower order bits is equivalent to throwing away the bottom two bits. If you throw away the bottom two bits, you don't subtract the lowest 4 points from your range of values, you essentially divide everything by 4.

But anyway, this focus on number of levels is a big red herring, because as we all understand well, dynamic range in the highlights is interchangeable with dynamic range in the shadows. A stop of dynamic range is a stop of dynamic range (and a stop of dynamic range in the shadows can be a stop in the highlights if you want it to be)

[jrista]

Perhaps we are on different pages. Once an image is digitized, its digitized. It has a fixed bit depth. In the case of modern DSLR's, the 14-bit output of a RAW is fixed,

The part that you seem to not quite get here is that if you have a noise level of "8" and your scale goes from 1-16384, you don't really have 16384 distinct levels in your output  signal.  Nor do you have 16384 - 8 levels. You have 16384 / 8 levels (2048).

however since it is in the "lower order bits", or in the darkest tonal levels of an image, the gain is minima
. Were not talking about a huge difference overall, we are talking about a very small difference overall.

I don't think you understood my previous post. Losing the lower order bits is equivalent to throwing away the bottom two bits. If you throw away the bottom two bits, you don't subtract the lowest 4 points from your range of values, you essentially divide everything by 4.

But anyway, this focus on number of levels is a big red herring, because as we all understand well, dynamic range in the highlights is interchangeable with dynamic range in the shadows. A stop of dynamic range is a stop of dynamic range (and a stop of dynamic range in the shadows can be a stop in the highlights if you want it to be)

I still have a problem with your terminology and context. You keep using the word signal. I agree that what you've said above is true when we are working with an analog signal. I am not sure its true if we are working with a digital image. I believe those two things are distinct contexts, but you seem to keep conflating the two, and as long as that is the case, I don't see the point in continuing the discussion.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Perhaps we are on different pages. Once an image is digitized, its digitized. It has a fixed bit depth. In the case of modern DSLR's, the 14-bit output of a RAW is fixed,

The part that you seem to not quite get here is that if you have a noise level of "8" and your scale goes from 1-16384, you don't really have 16384 distinct levels in your output  signal.  Nor do you have 16384 - 8 levels. You have 16384 / 8 levels (2048).

however since it is in the "lower order bits", or in the darkest tonal levels of an image, the gain is minima
. Were not talking about a huge difference overall, we are talking about a very small difference overall.

I don't think you understood my previous post. Losing the lower order bits is equivalent to throwing away the bottom two bits. If you throw away the bottom two bits, you don't subtract the lowest 4 points from your range of values, you essentially divide everything by 4.

But anyway, this focus on number of levels is a big red herring, because as we all understand well, dynamic range in the highlights is interchangeable with dynamic range in the shadows. A stop of dynamic range is a stop of dynamic range (and a stop of dynamic range in the shadows can be a stop in the highlights if you want it to be)

I still have a problem with your terminology and context. You keep using the word signal. I agree that what you've said above is true when we are working with an analog signal. I am not sure its true if we are working with a digital image. I believe those two things are distinct contexts, but you seem to keep conflating the two, and as long as that is the case, I don't see the point in continuing the discussion.

I don't understand why you keep going on about analog and saying he is conflating two different contexts.

[jrista]

Perhaps we are on different pages. Once an image is digitized, its digitized. It has a fixed bit depth. In the case of modern DSLR's, the 14-bit output of a RAW is fixed,

The part that you seem to not quite get here is that if you have a noise level of "8" and your scale goes from 1-16384, you don't really have 16384 distinct levels in your output  signal.  Nor do you have 16384 - 8 levels. You have 16384 / 8 levels (2048).

however since it is in the "lower order bits", or in the darkest tonal levels of an image, the gain is minima
. Were not talking about a huge difference overall, we are talking about a very small difference overall.

I don't think you understood my previous post. Losing the lower order bits is equivalent to throwing away the bottom two bits. If you throw away the bottom two bits, you don't subtract the lowest 4 points from your range of values, you essentially divide everything by 4.

But anyway, this focus on number of levels is a big red herring, because as we all understand well, dynamic range in the highlights is interchangeable with dynamic range in the shadows. A stop of dynamic range is a stop of dynamic range (and a stop of dynamic range in the shadows can be a stop in the highlights if you want it to be)

I still have a problem with your terminology and context. You keep using the word signal. I agree that what you've said above is true when we are working with an analog signal. I am not sure its true if we are working with a digital image. I believe those two things are distinct contexts, but you seem to keep conflating the two, and as long as that is the case, I don't see the point in continuing the discussion.

I don't understand why you keep going on about analog and saying he is conflating two different contexts.

This discussion started pages ago regarding whether downscaling an image in post could result in a gain of more than double the number of tones (levels of luminance) than you originally started with. The context of that discussion was explicitly related to a digital image on a computer, not an analog signal on a sensor in a camera. The nature of an analog signal is quite different than the discrete, integer nature of a digital image post-ADC.

Most of Elflord's recent posts discuss DR in the context of camera hardware...sensor signals and metering and how you can change exposure to shift the tone of an analog signal around within the dynamic range of the sensor. I don't disagree with that at all...its an analog signal, with near infinite precision and the ability to be fluidly redistributed. I disagree that a digital image of discretely recorded luminance levels for each channel of an RGB image can be treated the same way, and I wanted to get back to the discussion about scaling a digital image. But whatever. This thread is so far off track now it doesn't matter.

[elflord]

I still have a problem with your terminology and context. You keep using the word signal. I agree that what you've said above is true when we are working with an analog signal. I am not sure its true if we are working with a digital image.  I believe those two things are distinct contexts, but you seem to keep conflating the two, and as long as that is the case, I don't see the point in continuing the discussion.

I don't use the word "analog" or discuss analog anything anywhere. Since I'm discussing a value represented by a 14 bit integer, it should be clear that I am NOT referring to analog anything. In particular, when I discuss your table, I am referring to a digital signal.

I agree that there's not much point continuing the discussion not because I'm conflating anything, but because you don't appear to understand what I've posted.

[RLPhoto]

If you want better DR, Spend some Dosh on a filter set.

[nightbreath]

If you want better DR, Spend some Dosh on a filter set.

Absolutely 

[Kernuak]

I still have a problem with your terminology and context. You keep using the word signal. I agree that what you've said above is true when we are working with an analog signal. I am not sure its true if we are working with a digital image.  I believe those two things are distinct contexts, but you seem to keep conflating the two, and as long as that is the case, I don't see the point in continuing the discussion.

I don't use the word "analog" or discuss analog anything anywhere. Since I'm discussing a value represented by a 14 bit integer, it should be clear that I am NOT referring to analog anything. In particular, when I discuss your table, I am referring to a digital signal.

I agree that there's not much point continuing the discussion not because I'm conflating anything, but because you don't appear to understand what I've posted.

Several  people seem to be in some sorts of  post Canon deppresion and  they slowly begin to understand that Canon is no longer the best in the world  and some will surely enter the acceptance stage by knowledge but many will live  in a denial stage and hope for a miracle.

While others of us simply have other priorities than dynamic range .

[Razor2012]

I still have a problem with your terminology and context. You keep using the word signal. I agree that what you've said above is true when we are working with an analog signal. I am not sure its true if we are working with a digital image.  I believe those two things are distinct contexts, but you seem to keep conflating the two, and as long as that is the case, I don't see the point in continuing the discussion.

I don't use the word "analog" or discuss analog anything anywhere. Since I'm discussing a value represented by a 14 bit integer, it should be clear that I am NOT referring to analog anything. In particular, when I discuss your table, I am referring to a digital signal.

I agree that there's not much point continuing the discussion not because I'm conflating anything, but because you don't appear to understand what I've posted.

Several  people seem to be in some sorts of  post Canon deppresion and  they slowly begin to understand that Canon is no longer the best in the world  and some will surely enter the acceptance stage by knowledge but many will live  in a denial stage and hope for a miracle.

While others of us simply have other priorities than dynamic range .

+1

[Chuck Alaimo]

all this tech talk has gotten us away from the point, that being canon sucks (sarcasm)!!!.  Come on now, we all knowthere was no such thing as a good picture before the d800 came out, I mean forget the wonderful images taken by photogs and letys just study charts and graphs...or...wait...no...I'm gonna go shoot a wedding with my mk3 and maybe my 7d might get some action too! 

[nightbreath]

... forget the wonderful images taken by photogs and letys just study charts and graphs...or...wait...no...I'm gonna go shoot a wedding with my mk3 and maybe my 7d might get some action too!

You'd better say "sorry, may I take a low dynamic range shot of you?" before shooting anyone with those cameras 

[RLPhoto]

all this tech talk has gotten us away from the point, that being canon sucks (sarcasm)!!!.  Come on now, we all knowthere was no such thing as a good picture before the d800 came out, I mean forget the wonderful images taken by photogs and letys just study charts and graphs...or...wait...no...I'm gonna go shoot a wedding with my mk3 and maybe my 7d might get some action too!

I Know Let's post our horrible photos out of our horrible canon Cameras! 

Feel free to join in if you like. 

[jrista]

all this tech talk has gotten us away from the point, that being canon sucks (sarcasm)!!!.  Come on now, we all knowthere was no such thing as a good picture before the d800 came out, I mean forget the wonderful images taken by photogs and letys just study charts and graphs...or...wait...no...I'm gonna go shoot a wedding with my mk3 and maybe my 7d might get some action too!

I Know Let's post our horrible photos out of our horrible canon Cameras! 

Ah! Great shots, RL. I particularly love that last one...AWESOME WORK!

EDIT: Derp. The one with the sombrero is gone.