Why isn't Canon working on DSLRs with higher dynamic range?

[DanG_UE]

It seems that many people are interested in film in part because it captures light with a similar range to the human eye. Between that, the wide utilization of RAW, and just the general issue of needing HDR or some other technique to balance many scenes, why isn't Canon focusing some efforts on creating sensors able to capture at least closer to the 24 stops the human eye can see?

I shoot in very high contrast areas with poor lighting (abandoned buildings), and dynamic range is actually the trait I care more about than any other at the moment. Canon has only reached 12.1 EV, while Nikon is at least hitting 14.2 EV.

Fujifilm had that one DSLR back in the day that could recover an insane amount from the highlights. I remember hearing it had something to do with a grid of different sized holes over the pixel array. I'm surprised no one has looked to challenge that technique.

 

[bdunbar79]

It seems that many people are interested in film in part because it captures light with a similar range to the human eye. Between that, the wide utilization of RAW, and just the general issue of needing HDR or some other technique to balance many scenes, why isn't Canon focusing some efforts on creating sensors able to capture at least closer to the 24 stops the human eye can see?

I shoot in very high contrast areas with poor lighting (abandoned buildings), and dynamic range is actually the trait I care more about than any other at the moment. Canon has only reached 12.1 EV, while Nikon is at least hitting 14.2 EV.

Fujifilm had that one DSLR back in the day that could recover an insane amount from the highlights. I remember hearing it had something to do with a grid of different sized holes over the pixel array. I'm surprised no one has looked to challenge that technique.

So they are hitting 14.2 EV with a 14-bit ADC you are saying?

 

[Don Haines]

It seems that many people are interested in film in part because it captures light with a similar range to the human eye. Between that, the wide utilization of RAW, and just the general issue of needing HDR or some other technique to balance many scenes, why isn't Canon focusing some efforts on creating sensors able to capture at least closer to the 24 stops the human eye can see?

I shoot in very high contrast areas with poor lighting (abandoned buildings), and dynamic range is actually the trait I care more about than any other at the moment. Canon has only reached 12.1 EV, while Nikon is at least hitting 14.2 EV.

Fujifilm had that one DSLR back in the day that could recover an insane amount from the highlights. I remember hearing it had something to do with a grid of different sized holes over the pixel array. I'm surprised no one has looked to challenge that technique.

So they are hitting 14.2 EV with a 14-bit ADC you are saying?

And you wonder why people question DXO?

 

[3kramd5]

Who says they aren't?

I think the noise (haha) over a stop or two of additional shadow recovery is fairly inconsequential to canon.

Would it be cool for them to bring in 24-bit ADC? Yah sure, but at the end of the day, most people look at screens with maybe 8 stops of DR, or prints with less. When the recording device is already capturing significantly more range than the end product is capable of displaying, photographers still need to employ methods to compress the DR of a scene, either before it hits the film/sensor (nd filters, lighting techniques, etc), or before it hits the print (exposure stacking, etc).

Having more information to work with when we enter post would be welcome, but the number of instances in which someone wants to show the words on a newspaper under a picnic table in broad daylight as well as the details of the clouds in the sky above it are pretty rare.

That said, I also welcome DR improvements because of what it means for noise.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

It seems that many people are interested in film in part because it captures light with a similar range to the human eye. Between that, the wide utilization of RAW, and just the general issue of needing HDR or some other technique to balance many scenes, why isn't Canon focusing some efforts on creating sensors able to capture at least closer to the 24 stops the human eye can see?

I shoot in very high contrast areas with poor lighting (abandoned buildings), and dynamic range is actually the trait I care more about than any other at the moment. Canon has only reached 12.1 EV, while Nikon is at least hitting 14.2 EV.

Fujifilm had that one DSLR back in the day that could recover an insane amount from the highlights. I remember hearing it had something to do with a grid of different sized holes over the pixel array. I'm surprised no one has looked to challenge that technique.

So they are hitting 14.2 EV with a 14-bit ADC you are saying?

And you wonder why people question DXO?

That is not something to make on question DxO.
DxO simply normalizes everything to 8MP equivalent for fair comparison, so it makes perfect sense that a D800 could end up with more than DR than bits in its ADC on their normalized comparison. (if you look at the screen view chart it doesn't go over 14).

But yeah it is true that making use of the full res it doesn't hit over 14 stops (then again neither does the Canon hit over 12 stops at it's full res).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Anyway, hopefully they are at this point.

 

[Orangutan]

It seems that many people are interested in film in part because it captures light with a similar range to the human eye.

Does it? The eye is more of a 10fps video camera than a still camera, if I remember correctly.

I shoot in very high contrast areas with poor lighting (abandoned buildings), and dynamic range is actually the trait I care more about than any other at the moment. Canon has only reached 12.1 EV, while Nikon is at least hitting 14.2 EV.

CR Geek has made a valid point on numerous occasions: the fraction of scenes where the DR is strictly beyond Canon's range, and strictly within Nikon/Sony range is very small. Even in your circumstance, you probably need more than 14 stops of DR, so you may need to do something HDR-ish.

So,

Why isn't Canon working on DSLRs with higher dynamic range

Who says they aren't working on one? But if you mean why don't they put one in a near-generation camera, maybe it's because the market doesn't require it.

 

[Don Haines]

why isn't Canon focusing some efforts on creating sensors able to capture at least closer to the 24 stops the human eye can see?

Yes, the human eye is capable of seeing 24 stops of light... but even my 60D can see 40 stops of light.... (3 stops of aperture, 7 stops of ISO, 18 of shutter speed, and 12 stops of DR).... but only about 12 at a time.

And similarly that's how the eye works. You do not see the whole 24 stops at once. The iris adjusts to let light in, giving several stops of range, and in dim light you go to a very low resolution B+W sensor. Note how your eyes take time to adjust as you go from bright to dim areas... And on top of that, your "video feed" from your eyes is an incredibly processed predictive feed where the output is based on past events and not what you actually see, plus the resolution is highest NEAR the centre, falling off severely at the edges, and blank in the middle (blind spot). The mind takes this incredibly lousy video feed and processes it into what we perceive as vision.

In short, just about every camera out there has superior resolution and DR than the human eye.

 

[eml58]

why isn't Canon focusing some efforts on creating sensors able to capture at least closer to the 24 stops the human eye can see?

Yes, the human eye is capable of seeing 24 stops of light... but even my 60D can see 40 stops of light.... (3 stops of aperture, 7 stops of ISO, 18 of shutter speed, and 12 stops of DR).... but only about 12 at a time.

And similarly that's how the eye works. You do not see the whole 24 stops at once. The iris adjusts to let light in, giving several stops of range, and in dim light you go to a very low resolution B+W sensor. Note how your eyes take time to adjust as you go from bright to dim areas... And on top of that, your "video feed" from your eyes is an incredibly processed predictive feed where the output is based on past events and not what you actually see, plus the resolution is highest NEAR the centre, falling off severely at the edges, and blank in the middle (blind spot). The mind takes this incredibly lousy video feed and processes it into what we perceive as vision.

In short, just about every camera out there has superior resolution and DR than the human eye.

I'm thinking of strapping a pair of 1Dx onto my face, I can always see better through the viewfinder, age related no doubt.

 

[Don Haines]

why isn't Canon focusing some efforts on creating sensors able to capture at least closer to the 24 stops the human eye can see?

Yes, the human eye is capable of seeing 24 stops of light... but even my 60D can see 40 stops of light.... (3 stops of aperture, 7 stops of ISO, 18 of shutter speed, and 12 stops of DR).... but only about 12 at a time.

And similarly that's how the eye works. You do not see the whole 24 stops at once. The iris adjusts to let light in, giving several stops of range, and in dim light you go to a very low resolution B+W sensor. Note how your eyes take time to adjust as you go from bright to dim areas... And on top of that, your "video feed" from your eyes is an incredibly processed predictive feed where the output is based on past events and not what you actually see, plus the resolution is highest NEAR the centre, falling off severely at the edges, and blank in the middle (blind spot). The mind takes this incredibly lousy video feed and processes it into what we perceive as vision.

In short, just about every camera out there has superior resolution and DR than the human eye.

I'm thinking of strapping a pair of 1Dx onto my face, I can always see better through the viewfinder, age related no doubt.

Seriously though.... ever used a night vision headset? You can see great in what appears to be complete darkness... imagine a camera like that... ISO 26,214,400?

 

[Lee Jay]

Base ISO DR isn't particularly important, IMHO. Sure, more is better, but the only time I absolutely could not capture a scene with a Canon camera at base ISO due to limited DR, I needed about 30 stops, so one or two extra stops wouldn't have mattered a bit.

High ISO DR, on the other hand, is crucial, and here Canon is on par with the rest, none of which are good enough.

The catch is, any improvement in high ISO DR will help at base ISO also.

Canon has a huge opportunity to leverage dual pixel technology to massively increase DR at base and moderate ISO.

 

[Lee Jay]

In short, just about every camera out there has superior resolution and DR than the human eye.

Baloney.

The human eye can see about 14 stops of DR in a single image without moving. Some cameras can do that in a single image, many cannot. I read this long ago, and tested myself as a result of what I had read, and it's correct.

By the way, the eye can see much more than 24 stops across the entire range of light adaptation and pupil diameters. It depends on your age and diet and such, but 30 is doable (but only 14 at a time, in good light, as I said).

 

[Aglet]

..the eye can see much more than 24 stops across the entire range of light adaptation and pupil diameters. It depends on your age and diet and such, but 30 is doable (but only 14 at a time, in good light, as I said).

Good explanation why Exmors are good enough (I'm happy with mine) and Canon is suffering inadequacy anxiety. ;D

When the organic sensor from Fuji-Matsushita sees the light of day, it'll also likely be able to see in the shadows of dark holes at the same time.

EDIT - ADD LINK TO 15.3 STOPS OF DR ON SONY A7s
www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-adds-silent-mode-and-15-3-stops-in-raw-via-fw-upgrade-on-the-new-sony-a7s/

Uhmmmm... isn't that still a 14b camera?...

even downsampled to 8MP, DxO-style... (what's the noise math again?)

 

[dak723]

Maybe Canon likes the "punchier" higher contrast images that they have been producing for all these years, rather than the lower contrast images that you get with more DR. Yes, there are times you want more DR - and the professional photographers definitely find the difference in "what you see" and the more limited DR the camera captures to be frustrating, but the average person probably likes the higher contrast images they are getting with Canon. I know, as a professional artist, that when drawing or painting the usual conventional wisdom is to limit the value range (DR in artist speak) and "push" the darks (make the darks darker). Many artists, when they take pics of their artwork, find the pics to be better! That's because there are more and deeper darks.

So maybe it's not a high priority. Just a total guess on my part.

 

[jrista]

..the eye can see much more than 24 stops across the entire range of light adaptation and pupil diameters. It depends on your age and diet and such, but 30 is doable (but only 14 at a time, in good light, as I said).

Good explanation why Exmors are good enough (I'm happy with mine) and Canon is suffering inadequacy anxiety. ;D

When the organic sensor from Fuji-Matsushita sees the light of day, it'll also likely be able to see in the shadows of dark holes at the same time.

EDIT - ADD LINK TO 15.3 STOPS OF DR ON SONY A7s
www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-adds-silent-mode-and-15-3-stops-in-raw-via-fw-upgrade-on-the-new-sony-a7s/

Uhmmmm... isn't that still a 14b camera?...

even downsampled to 8MP, DxO-style... (what's the noise math again?)

It is a 14-bit ADC. I think this has to do with their in-camera image processing (which is kind of what the A7s is all about, and the reason it has such clean ultra-high ISO video). It's shifting the exposure around, lifting shadows and compressing highlights. I'm guessing that's where they get the "15.3 stops DR". It wouldn't be "sensor output RAW", though...the output from the sensor is 14-bit, so it would have to be limited to 14 stops of DR AT MOST (and there is always some overhead, some noise, so it would have to be LESS than 14 stops, i.e. 13.something.)

 

[zlatko]

It seems that many people are interested in film in part because it captures light with a similar range to the human eye. Between that, the wide utilization of RAW, and just the general issue of needing HDR or some other technique to balance many scenes, why isn't Canon focusing some efforts on creating sensors able to capture at least closer to the 24 stops the human eye can see?

Film never had the dynamic range that you imagine. Film was very far from the human eye — and that was part of its charm. In any event, we don't know what Canon is working on.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Just found out that there are plans to try to start releasing HDR displays starting around 2020 (12bits per channel, HDR, ultra wide gamut, 4k-8k, with true blacks). Kinda like what I had been talking about might arrive one day.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

why isn't Canon focusing some efforts on creating sensors able to capture at least closer to the 24 stops the human eye can see?

Yes, the human eye is capable of seeing 24 stops of light... but even my 60D can see 40 stops of light.... (3 stops of aperture, 7 stops of ISO, 18 of shutter speed, and 12 stops of DR).... but only about 12 at a time.

And similarly that's how the eye works. You do not see the whole 24 stops at once. The iris adjusts to let light in, giving several stops of range, and in dim light you go to a very low resolution B+W sensor. Note how your eyes take time to adjust as you go from bright to dim areas... And on top of that, your "video feed" from your eyes is an incredibly processed predictive feed where the output is based on past events and not what you actually see, plus the resolution is highest NEAR the centre, falling off severely at the edges, and blank in the middle (blind spot). The mind takes this incredibly lousy video feed and processes it into what we perceive as vision.

In short, just about every camera out there has superior resolution and DR than the human eye.

And yet that is not true at all despite some claims. Just look at some scenes, and register both bright and dark parts at once which totally blow out current sensors.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Base ISO DR isn't particularly important, IMHO. Sure, more is better, but the only time I absolutely could not capture a scene with a Canon camera at base ISO due to limited DR, I needed about 30 stops, so one or two extra stops wouldn't have mattered a bit.

I find plenty of scenes where an extra 2-3 stops would help a ton. These scenes also can be mapped pretty well onto current displays.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Uhmmmm... isn't that still a 14b camera?...

even downsampled to 8MP, DxO-style... (what's the noise math again?)

maybe a7s has a higher bit depth ADC??