On 1/15/2019 1:22 PM, nospam wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:


Ok, so they do two frames, then merge or blend them into a single file.
That's postprocessing, not really "double exposure" in my book. It
simply emulates it, but it is not it.

are you channeling eric?

it's double exposure, without any emulation whatsoever.

It's not a double exposure it's two seperate exposures on two seperate frames.
Which is what happenes whenever you take two photos. Then they are merged
together something that doesn't happen when taking single exposures.

double exposure is always two separate exposures on two separate
frames. that's why it's called double.

bonus points: how many exposures in a triple exposure?

Is HDR a multi-exposure technigue I'd say yes but it isn't the same as what
was done in film multi-exposures.

the only difference is they're of the same subject rather than
different ones, and that there's usually more than two images for hdr,
although two certainly works.

So I'd say it was emulation of double exposure, or it could be a simulation
if exactly the same method was used as would be used in film.

it's neither emulation nor simulation. it really is double exposure (or
triple or however many there are).

also, a double exposure of the same scene will have less noise,

The vast majority of double exposures wouldn't be of exactly the same scene
otherwise they'd be little point in doing it, unless for HDR of course which
is when you do take multiple shots of the same scene.

it doesn't matter what the majority does.

multiple shots of the same scene will reduce noise. once again, math.

and
it's a lot easier to do it in camera than later.

Only with digital not with film, as you run the risk of the film moving.

push the little button and the transport is disengaged.

sheet film users don't need to do anything.

that's also part of
how google night sight works.

What part ?

the multiple exposure part.


OMG We agree.

--
PeterN