What's Next from Canon?

[9VIII]

Go to your live view settings, you get to chose between exposure simulation and stills display, in exposure simulation it will only show you what the exposure will look like, in stills display it adjusts for lighting just like your eyes do.

I know, but which setting increases the DR of the sensor to the ~20 stops my eye can see through an OVF? :

You only see 10-14 stops at any given time. That 20 stops of dynamic range is a post processed HDR image combining multiple exposures.

This is what your misunderstanding. It doesn't matter the mechanics of how we see 20 stops...we SEE 20 stops! We see what our brains tell us we see, not what our retinas sense. As a human being, I am not individually seeing 14 stop frames from my eyes...I am SEEING that nearly 20-stop HDR post-processed image that my brain produces.

You can't break down human vision to mechanical steps, and claim that because our eyes, which take an exposure every 1/500th of a second, are only capable of discerning about 14 stops of dynamic range for each and every one of those 1/500th second frames, is limiting our VISION to 14 stops. Vision in the human brain isn't really even HDR. It is more like a rolling exposure stack...fresh full-detail frames flow in while stale, old frames fade. It's like an astrophotography calibration, stacking, and stretching process all rolled into a biological process that occurs hundreds of times per second. We see ~20 stops because we see what ends up in our visual cortex, and that is AFTER all the processing. Our total dynamic range is over 24 stops, because our retinal sensitivity adjusts over a period of time as we move from dim environments to bright environments. Our eyes can become dark adjusted, but become overly sensitive to brighter light...therefor "clipping" it. Our eyes can become bright adjusted, yet limit our ability to see the same kind of detail in the dark as we did when we were dark adjusted. When dark adjusted, our momentary dynamic range is closer to 10 stops (in large part because our cones don't deliver sensory impulses until they have accumulated enough photons in a given time slice, so we lose a good portion of our total sensitivity per retinal area). When bright adjusted, our momentary dynamic range is closer to 20 stops, as both our rods and our cones are working at full capacity.

But simple fact of the matter...we don't see each of the 500 "frames" per second our eyes deliver to our brains...we SEE the HDR image our brains generate in our visual cortex.

I read an article a while ago stating that our perception of motion is actually purely analogue, even if you have a display running at 1,000hz or higher, you're still going to see a choppy image as long as it's moving fast enough.
Display refresh rate seems to be another one of those things were you just have to pick a point of diminishing returns, in theory the number can never be high enough.
Unfortunately I haven't been able to find the article for a while, but all a person would have to do is wave around a light source pulsating at 1000hz to see first hand.

When bright adjusted, our momentary dynamic range is closer to 20 stops, as both our rods and our cones are working at full capacity.

Do you have a source for that information?

After a few minutes on Wikipedia the best quote I can find is (again) one of these blog articles (the website makes it clear that it is not associated with Cambridge, but the author did get a PhD in chemical engineering there, which may or may not be as relevant as a PhD in psychology in this context).

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic-range.htm

because our eye's sensitivity and dynamic range actually change depending on brightness and contrast. Most estimate anywhere from 10-14 f-stops.

Back to the subject at hand.
If you sit there and stare at a lightbulb your eyes aren't going to pick up the detail in some dark space behind it unless you specifically stare into the dark space. The only difference is you use your eyes by instinct, where pointing the camera to a different spot is a more intentional action.
In a lower dynamic range scenario I have to agree that you will naturally do all that subconsciously. Which still doesn't tell me why all this is such a big deal for getting the right exposure or composition in a picture.

As far as I can tell this is one of the best examples of people rejecting new technology simply because of a lack of familiarity ( the "dynamic range" argument specifically).
I don't actually want to perpetuate the EVF as the be-all and end-all of viewfinders, but from a logical standpoint I cannot wrap my head around why so many people get so strung up about it.
You don't need pinpoint accuracy to tell if you're cutting the head off a bird, and while it would be nice to see an exact representation of the final image as far as avoiding over or under exposing I don't see where the EVF fails, or that you're doing any less guessing with an OVF. I'm not going to say that either one is better or worse all things considered.
If everyone would just say they prefer the "feel" of it that would be great, but I guess the defensiveness comes from seeing an equally large group needlessly adopting new technology when there is nothing wrong with the old.
Except with manual focus lenses. My 5D2 OVF really is useless with a manual focus 85f1.4. Yes, I know there is a different screen you can install, and I'm kicking myself now for forgetting to get one with my last B&H order, but oddly enough that isn't even an option on many bodies.

You only see 10-14 stops at any given time. That 20 stops of dynamic range is a post processed HDR image combining multiple exposures.

LOL. Sorry, but have you heard the expression 'teaching your grandmother to suck eggs'? Undergrad and doctoral degrees in Neuroscience, close to a decade of teaching it, and over two decades of research in the field.

While psychophysical experiments have demonstrated the capability to perceive disruptive images (e.g. a black frame in a video sequence) with dwell times as short as 12-14 ms, normal vision in effect 'sums' a rolling period of ~100 ms, i.e. when you 'see' an image, it's a 7-shot stack. So...human vision IS, among other things, "...post processed HDR image video combining multiple exposures." We really do see that 20-stop range, due to a combination of slower optical mechanisms (sphincter and dilator pupillae muscles of the iris) and much faster physiological mechanisms (ganglion cell tuning and attention processing in the visual cortex).

Since we know your iris isn't closing and opening in fractions of a second like a camera iris, then all the dynamic range we care about in this context is the receptors.

Neuro, I don't doubt you, but It's only prudent to ask for a source other than your own words.

 

[Loswr]

Neuro, I don't doubt you, but It's only prudent to ask for a source other than your own words.

Eric Kandel's (et al.) Principles of Neural Science is a great place to start. Chapters 25-29 deal with vision, from retina through visual cortex (primary and extrastriate).

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0071390111

If you want primary literature references, I can provide a few...

 

[9VIII]

Neuro, I don't doubt you, but It's only prudent to ask for a source other than your own words.

Eric Kandel's (et al.) Principles of Neural Science is a great place to start. Chapters 25-29 deal with vision, from retina through visual cortex (primary and extrastriate).

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0071390111

If you want primary literature references, I can provide a few...

Excellent.
My copy will arrive next week.

 

[jrista]

I'll defer to Neuro for references. Sounds like he has better ones than I do. Once I have the dough (I just bought an Orion Atlas EQ-G equatorial mount for my astronomy/astrophotography, so no cash at the moment), I'll buy that book. Sounds pretty awesome.

You can also just use a basic little experiment. Find a landscape with huge DR. One with backlit clouds and deeper shadows under the trees. Even a 14-stop D800 can't capture the full dynamic range. Look at the scene with your own eyes, and you'll see detail in those backlit clouds as well as detail in the shadows under the trees. I photographed a scene like this at the end of summer last year, over Long Lake up in the Indian Peaks region of the Colorado Front Range. My camera couldn't handle it, the clouds were way too bright. But I could see people moving about the opposite shore under the trees (which were buried in shadow noise in my photos, unrecoverable), and still see plenty of whispy detail in the bright clouds.

I measure each landscape scene I photograph with the cameras meter. I lock down ISO to 100, choose my aperture, and let the camera choose the shutter speed for me. I compute the dynamic range by calculating the difference in shutter speeds between the brightest (non-sun) area and the deepest shadows. There were about 18 stops of DR in that scene. Even with GND filters, I couldn't really get it all (and I stacked my 0.3, 0.9 and 1.2). That is the ONE reason where I fundamentally need as much DR as I can get in a camera...my landscapes. Even though I can use GND filters, when you stack that many, you end up with a rather noticeable gradient along the upper peaks of the mountains. You can mix and match hard and soft grads, but you can never really get that key horizon looking good.

Anyway...I know how much DR is in many of the landscape scenes I've photographed. My eyes can take in the whole thing quite frequently, even when it is many stops more than my camera can handle. So when you read things talking about how the dynamic range of human vision is somewhere between 20 and 24 stops, I really do believe it.

As for the Cambridge in Color stuff. They are pretty careful about disclaiming their claims. Pretty much anyone who claims to know anything about the science off the human eye is pretty quick to post a disclaimer. It's a rather ephemeral science of a highly subjective thing. Dynamic range is hard to actually "measure" with the human eye, especially as human perception differs from person to person. Some people are simply not in tune with what they bodies are capable of. Me, on the other hand, I have had hypersensitivity issues since I was a kid. I can hear and see things that some people don't notice until I tell them HOW to notice it. Then, suddenly, they can see the same things I do, until their attention drifts to something else. (If it wasn't for that, I'd think I was unique.) Sound is one of my biggest problems. I hear everything, and I apparently have no filter. It isn't like autism...if I concentrate I can kind of block some sounds, others, if they bug me (like an unknown vibration or the rumble of an engine) I often HAVE to find the source of the sound, if at the very least just to know that I'm not hearing things, that the sound actually does exist, and, if I have the power to, control it (i.e. make it stop! As you can imagine...I have MASSIVE problems sleeping...I've been a raging insomniac for nearly eight years now, and I always had sleep problems since I was a kid...it's really a curse, but I'm still amazed at what my brain can sense and process.) Again, most people don't hear the things I hear, at first...but when I point it out, most people will eventually hear it, so I know it isn't just that I have better senses than other people. Somewhere along the line I became too attuned to the minutia of sensory input that you really shouldn't be attuned to. Our bodies sensory organs are pretty freakin amazing, they have incredible range, yet exceptionally fine discernment.

Anyway...subjective...but, if you find the time, tune in...your senses are far better than they are often given credit for. You can smell better, hear better, see better than you are normally aware of...sometimes all it takes is a little practice and concentration, and you can hone your senses, maximize their potential (just don't take it too far, or you might end up cursed like me... :-\)

 

[Sella174]

You can say that you are right and I am wrong, all you want...

I said we are both right, unless one of us says that the other is wrong, in which case the sayer of wrongness is in actual fact the one who is wrong. (I didn't make the "if" capitals, bold and red just for pure artistic effect.)

How can you say this....????

But, you didn't think that 60D was better than the 30D, and the 6D was basically the same as the 30D.

Regarding the 60D ... I found that I (me, personally; not you, them and others) derive absolutely almost zero benefit from the increase in megapixels, for the simple fact that, as an example, my 24mm lens cannot handle that resolution. So, whether I take a picture with my 24mm on the 30D (8MP) or the 60D (18MP), the result is very much the same due to the "lack of resolving power" by the lens ... and sometimes it's worse. This means an "upgrade" in camera also means an immediate "upgrade" in lenses as well.

Regarding the 60D and the 6D ... I agree that both cameras offer spectacular improvements in high-ISO performance over my ancient 30D's and 5D. Only, I (me, personally; not you, them and others) don't photograph in the dark woods on a moonless night and, as stated previous, basically live at ISO200 most of the time. So what benefit do I (me, personally; not you, them and others) derive from "clean" ISO12800, huh? And only if the camera has a shutterspeed to match, which I (me, personally; not you, them and others) don't necessarily and artistically desire. But I've had this discussion before ...

You know what's two features that would really make me buy a new camera model? AutoISO and AFMA. Well, I can go on and on about what these two features (or lack thereof) says about a company like Canon ... but, no ... :-X

In closing, I find this constant bashing of my gear whenever people have no real counter-argument rather juvenile, moronic, stupid, idiotic and juvenile. I also find this constant bashing of my gear because I do not conform to the perceptions, attitudes and behaviour of the group/herd/pack/flock rather juvenile, moronic, stupid, idiotic and juvenile. Oh, please do throw THAT back in my face.

Progressively speaking.... how do you know that EVF is going to get better? Each year that passes?
And, even if it does... on the spec sheet, how do you know that the current ones out there won't be better than the subsequent ones to be released from here on end? After all, it is "subjective."

I know, because each time a new model is released, I pickle down to the local retailer and have myself a gander ... that's how ...

 

[Sella174]

The OVF itself is effectively unlimited when it comes to DR...

I do not deny that we can see more dynamic range with our eyeballs, but ...

FACT: The sensor has less dynamic range than our eyeballs and therefore also captures less dynamic range in the resulting photograph. Correct? Let's assume so for the question below ...

QUESTION: If the EVF has the same dynamic range of the sensor and thus produces an accurate depiction of what the sensor will capture as the final image, why is it deemed so important to see more dynamic range through the viewfinder even though the sensor won't be capturing all the excess dynamic range anyway?

ASIDE: How are we getting on regarding the discussion about the bigger batteries for mirrorless cameras?

 

[slclick]

Unless of course you have Acute Multifocal Placoid Pigment Epitheliopy, then you lose quite a bit of DR.

 

[Lee Jay]

The OVF itself is effectively unlimited when it comes to DR...

I do not deny that we can see more dynamic range with our eyeballs, but ...

FACT: The sensor has less dynamic range than our eyeballs and therefore also captures less dynamic range in the resulting photograph. Correct? Let's assume so for the question below ...

QUESTION: If the EVF has the same dynamic range of the sensor and thus produces an accurate depiction of what the sensor will capture as the final image, why is it deemed so important to see more dynamic range through the viewfinder even though the sensor won't be capturing all the excess dynamic range anyway?

ASIDE: How are we getting on regarding the discussion about the bigger batteries for mirrorless cameras?

The EVF doesn't come anywhere close to having the same DR as the sensor. It's lower by around 6-8 stops. And even if it did, I'd want to see more so I can choose which portion of the scene DR I'd like to capture.

 

[Sella174]

It's lower by around 6-8 stops.

Proof?

 

[Don Haines]

The EVF doesn't come anywhere close to having the same DR as the sensor. It's lower by around 6-8 stops. And even if it did, I'd want to see more so I can choose which portion of the scene DR I'd like to capture.

For sake of illustration..... let's say the sensor has 12DB of dynamic range and the EVF has 8 stops of dynamic range... The 12DB range of the sensor is then mapped onto the 8DB range of the EVF.... and the viewer can then see it....

The limitation is the capture of data.... once you have it, you can adjust and shift all you want to map up against output devices such as monitors, printers, and EVFs

 

[Lee Jay]

It's lower by around 6-8 stops.

Proof?

I've tried it. The EVFs are showing what is in essence the out-of-camera JPEG, with about 1 stop clipped from each end. And as we all know, the out-of-camera JPEG contains several stops less DR than is available in the raw data.

 

[Lee Jay]

The EVF doesn't come anywhere close to having the same DR as the sensor. It's lower by around 6-8 stops. And even if it did, I'd want to see more so I can choose which portion of the scene DR I'd like to capture.

For sake of illustration..... let's say the sensor has 12DB of dynamic range and the EVF has 8 stops of dynamic range... The 12DB range of the sensor is then mapped onto the 8DB range of the EVF.... and the viewer can then see it....

The limitation is the capture of data.... once you have it, you can adjust and shift all you want to map up against output devices such as monitors, printers, and EVFs

If any of that were true, the EVF image would look lousy being flat and low contrast. And the limitation isn't just the capture. I can adjustexposure to capture the bright 12 stops, the dark 12 stops, or whatever I want.

 

[Don Haines]

The EVF doesn't come anywhere close to having the same DR as the sensor. It's lower by around 6-8 stops. And even if it did, I'd want to see more so I can choose which portion of the scene DR I'd like to capture.

For sake of illustration..... let's say the sensor has 12DB of dynamic range and the EVF has 8 stops of dynamic range... The 12DB range of the sensor is then mapped onto the 8DB range of the EVF.... and the viewer can then see it....

The limitation is the capture of data.... once you have it, you can adjust and shift all you want to map up against output devices such as monitors, printers, and EVFs

If any of that were true, the EVF image would look lousy being flat and low contrast. And the limitation isn't just the capture. I can adjustexposure to capture the bright 12 stops, the dark 12 stops, or whatever I want.

Eyes capture on a semi-logarithmic scale.... sensors capture on a linear scale... there is maping of intensity on every display device....

 

[Sella174]

I've tried it.

Please keep to the parameters of the scenario, i.e. DR of EVF == DR of sensor.

The EVFs are showing what is in essence the out-of-camera JPEG, with about 1 stop clipped from each end. And as we all know, the out-of-camera JPEG contains several stops less DR than is available in the raw data.

Interesting. So the camera is essentially generating 60 or more JPEG images per second, plus adding overlay data to it. Amazing.

 

[Bob Howland]

It's lower by around 6-8 stops.

Proof?

I've tried it. The EVFs are showing what is in essence the out-of-camera JPEG, with about 1 stop clipped from each end. And as we all know, the out-of-camera JPEG contains several stops less DR than is available in the raw data.

The out-of-camera JPEG would probably contain considerably more resolution than the EVF requires, or are you talking about something like the JPEG that gets embedded in the Raw? Could you provide more details about how you "tried" it?

 

[Loswr]

Interesting. So the camera is essentially generating 60 or more JPEG images per second, plus adding overlay data to it. Amazing.

Wow, that would be like....recording video with picture- or cine-style applied, except at lower resolution and without the additional time required for writing it to a card. It would sure be amazing if a camera could do that. :

 

[scyrene]

Regarding the 60D ... I found that I (me, personally; not you, them and others) derive absolutely almost zero benefit from the increase in megapixels, for the simple fact that, as an example, my 24mm lens cannot handle that resolution. So, whether I take a picture with my 24mm on the 30D (8MP) or the 60D (18MP), the result is very much the same due to the "lack of resolving power" by the lens ... and sometimes it's worse. This means an "upgrade" in camera also means an immediate "upgrade" in lenses as well.

I thought it was the case that the same lens will resolve more detail on a sensor with more megapixels, even if it isn't capable of resolving to the theoretical maximum of the better sensor? Isn't that in that hugely long equivalence article people link to occasionally? So the same lens cannot produce <i>worse</i> results on a better sensor (although a better lens may be required to get the best out of the higher resolution sensor)?

Regarding the 60D and the 6D ... I agree that both cameras offer spectacular improvements in high-ISO performance over my ancient 30D's and 5D. Only, I (me, personally; not you, them and others) don't photograph in the dark woods on a moonless night and, as stated previous, basically live at ISO200 most of the time. So what benefit do I (me, personally; not you, them and others) derive from "clean" ISO12800, huh? And only if the camera has a shutterspeed to match, which I (me, personally; not you, them and others) don't necessarily and artistically desire. But I've had this discussion before ...

For what it's worth, you don't need to be in comically extreme circumstances to need such high ISOs. Not that it makes a difference - you can work at 200, and so high ISO performance isn't important to you, as you say. But in overcast conditions around sunset, a bird - especially under trees, but even in the open - can easily need ISO 6400-12800+ - shooting at, say, 1/250sec and f/10. My point being, it's a fairly regular real world situation for some of us. Nighttime forests would require a whole lot more sensitivity (and I appreciate it was probably hyperbole, but I think a lot of people really do find it odd anyone would want clean high ISO).

 

[Lee Jay]

I've tried it.

Please keep to the parameters of the scenario, i.e. DR of EVF == DR of sensor.

They don't. That's the whole point.

The EVFs are showing what is in essence the out-of-camera JPEG, with about 1 stop clipped from each end. And as we all know, the out-of-camera JPEG contains several stops less DR than is available in the raw data.

Interesting. So the camera is essentially generating 60 or more JPEG images per second, plus adding overlay data to it. Amazing.

It's a low-res version (1024x768 is considered a very high res EVF).

 

[Lee Jay]

It's lower by around 6-8 stops.

Proof?

I've tried it. The EVFs are showing what is in essence the out-of-camera JPEG, with about 1 stop clipped from each end. And as we all know, the out-of-camera JPEG contains several stops less DR than is available in the raw data.

The out-of-camera JPEG would probably contain considerably more resolution than the EVF requires, or are you talking about something like the JPEG that gets embedded in the Raw? Could you provide more details about how you "tried" it?

Yes, it's a low-res out-of-camera JPEG.

Shoot an EVF camera (or even most SLRs in Live View) in raw+JPEG. Watch the scene (high contrast) carefully through the EVF (or on the LCD, though LCDs tend to be better than EVFs) to see where the whites are clipped and the blacks are crushed. Now look at the JPEG and see the same things. Now look at the raw, use a lot of highlight compression and shadow expansion and look again at the same thing.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Go to your live view settings, you get to chose between exposure simulation and stills display, in exposure simulation it will only show you what the exposure will look like, in stills display it adjusts for lighting just like your eyes do.

I know, but which setting increases the DR of the sensor to the ~20 stops my eye can see through an OVF? :

You only see 10-14 stops at any given time. That 20 stops of dynamic range is a post processed HDR image combining multiple exposures.

Even if this were to be true (which, in a way it is, the only reason I am saying it like this is because there is clean, natural HDR and then there is the what the hell happened HDR)....which is the better, faster processing engine...your brain or the camera? And, which one will produce a natural image, your brain or the camera?