If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
histogram logarithm
I am new to reading digital photo histograms. I've been told that the
horizontal scale of luminosity is logarithmic. That the histogram is divided into 8 segments (not visually differentiated) of equal width. The first segment at the right side contains twice the information as the next segment, and that segment contains twice the info as its neighbor to the left, and so on. Meaning that the distribution image isn't quite what it might appear at first glance, its being on a logrithmic rather than linear scale. Apparently, the advantage of a log scale is that since the dark (left) end of the histogram represents images with far fewer photons, a linear scale histogram would be pretty thin on that end. Can anyone direct me to a better explanation of this? One that doesn't have a degree in physics as a prerequisite? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... I am new to reading digital photo histograms. I've been told that the horizontal scale of luminosity is logarithmic. Right, just like film curves and all the other exposure scales you've seen. Equal distances correspond to equal numbers of f-stops. That the histogram is divided into 8 segments (not visually differentiated) of equal width. No. It is more or less continuous, or divided into hundreds of segments. The reason for the log scale is that we perceive light logarithmically. The shutter speeds on your camera are logarithmic (1/1000, 1/500, 1/250... not 1/1000, 2/1000, 3/1000...). The f-stops on your camera lens produce logarithmically scaled intensities. One "stop" is a factor of 2, not an increment of 2. In short: Don't panic. Photographic measurements have been logarithmic all along. What you think of as "midtones" are halfway along a logarithmic scale, not halfway along a linear scale. If the histogram were not logarithmic, the highlights would take up far too much of it. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... I am new to reading digital photo histograms. I've been told that the horizontal scale of luminosity is logarithmic. Right, just like film curves and all the other exposure scales you've seen. Equal distances correspond to equal numbers of f-stops. That the histogram is divided into 8 segments (not visually differentiated) of equal width. No. It is more or less continuous, or divided into hundreds of segments. The reason for the log scale is that we perceive light logarithmically. The shutter speeds on your camera are logarithmic (1/1000, 1/500, 1/250... not 1/1000, 2/1000, 3/1000...). The f-stops on your camera lens produce logarithmically scaled intensities. One "stop" is a factor of 2, not an increment of 2. In short: Don't panic. Photographic measurements have been logarithmic all along. What you think of as "midtones" are halfway along a logarithmic scale, not halfway along a linear scale. If the histogram were not logarithmic, the highlights would take up far too much of it. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In article , wrote:
I am new to reading digital photo histograms. ... ...Can anyone direct me to a better explanation of this? One that doesn't have a degree in physics as a prerequisite? You might want to start with: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...stograms.shtml ron P.S. Didn't this question come up not too long ago - like within the past couple of weeks? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In article , wrote:
I am new to reading digital photo histograms. ... ...Can anyone direct me to a better explanation of this? One that doesn't have a degree in physics as a prerequisite? You might want to start with: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...stograms.shtml ron P.S. Didn't this question come up not too long ago - like within the past couple of weeks? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 23:03:40 -0800, (Ron
Wong) wrote: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...stograms.shtml I've read that article and quite a few others. None mention the logarithmic distribution and from what I was recently told, understanding the difference between a log scale and a linear scale is very helpful in using histograms. He was saying that the histogram of a properly exposed black-and-white checkerboard (exactly same amount of blacks and whites) would not show a symmetrical curve. The curve would be weighted toward the dark end of the scale. A useful thing to know, apparently. Not that being unaware of that means a person can't use a histogram to improve exposure. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 11:04:15 -0800, wrote:
reading digital photo histograms. The histogram that digital cameras show is not logarithmic nor linear. With current digital cameras the histogram shows the distribution of the linear captured data after the data has been a) automatically edited (finalized) by the firmware of the camera and b) compensated for CRT viewing. So, in short, with most if not all digital cameras the histogram is calculated from the camera finalized JPEG image. This unfortunately is so even if one is shooting in the linear RAW mode. In case the following three requirements are in effect: 1) the camera outputs the image data in the sadRGB color space (not many do so even if the manufacturers may so indicate in the manual) 2) the camera does behave colorimetricly, in other words it does not apply non-colorimetric "enhancements" (most if not all point&shoot cameras are non-colorimetric and some dSLRs are also). 3) the coding system of the camera is such that it maps the captured data up to level 255 (most do so) then you can estimate your exposure value (EV) from the histogram using the following table: Histogram ends at 255 == EV 0 Histogram ends at 230 == EV -0.33 Histogram ends at 207 == EV -0.67 Histogram ends at 186 == EV -1 Histogram ends at 168 == EV -1.33 Histogram ends at 151 == EV -1.67 Histogram ends at 136 == EV -2 Histogram ends at 122 == EV -2.33 Histogram ends at 110 == EV -2.67 Histogram ends at 99 == EV -3 Histogram ends at 89 == EV -3.33 Histogram ends at 80 == EV -3.67 Histogram ends at 72 == EV -4 So, e.g. if the histo of your photo ends at level 207 it means that you'd need to overexpose by +2/3 stops in order to capture hull histogram (in other words to utilize the capability of the camera in the best possible way). Most cameras do not apply the sadRGB transfer function so the following table that is calculated for gamma 1.72 space (native gamma space of Mac systems) will often give more accurate estimation: Histogram ends at 255 == EV 0 Histogram ends at 223 == EV -0.33 Histogram ends at 195 == EV -0.67 Histogram ends at 170 == EV -1 Histogram ends at 149 == EV -1.33 Histogram ends at 130 == EV -1.67 Histogram ends at 114 == EV -2 Histogram ends at 100 == EV -2.33 Histogram ends at 87 == EV -2.67 Histogram ends at 76 == EV -3 Histogram ends at 67 == EV -3.33 Histogram ends at 58 == EV -3.67 Histogram ends at 51 == EV -4 Now, a totally another issue then is the way how you perceive the effect of the f/stops (aperture) when you look through the viewfinder and change the aperture setting of the lens (while keeping the DOF button pressed). In this situation the vision adapts (light adaptation, it behaves about logarithmicly) so the change of the aperture (that also has logarithmic scale) will be perceived as a change that is equal in "effect" or in "amount", stop after stop, so the perceived effect is about linear. That is the desired effect and infarct the very reason why the aperture scaling was chosen to be logarithmic. Timo Autiokari http://www.aim-dtp.net |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 11:04:15 -0800, wrote:
reading digital photo histograms. The histogram that digital cameras show is not logarithmic nor linear. With current digital cameras the histogram shows the distribution of the linear captured data after the data has been a) automatically edited (finalized) by the firmware of the camera and b) compensated for CRT viewing. So, in short, with most if not all digital cameras the histogram is calculated from the camera finalized JPEG image. This unfortunately is so even if one is shooting in the linear RAW mode. In case the following three requirements are in effect: 1) the camera outputs the image data in the sadRGB color space (not many do so even if the manufacturers may so indicate in the manual) 2) the camera does behave colorimetricly, in other words it does not apply non-colorimetric "enhancements" (most if not all point&shoot cameras are non-colorimetric and some dSLRs are also). 3) the coding system of the camera is such that it maps the captured data up to level 255 (most do so) then you can estimate your exposure value (EV) from the histogram using the following table: Histogram ends at 255 == EV 0 Histogram ends at 230 == EV -0.33 Histogram ends at 207 == EV -0.67 Histogram ends at 186 == EV -1 Histogram ends at 168 == EV -1.33 Histogram ends at 151 == EV -1.67 Histogram ends at 136 == EV -2 Histogram ends at 122 == EV -2.33 Histogram ends at 110 == EV -2.67 Histogram ends at 99 == EV -3 Histogram ends at 89 == EV -3.33 Histogram ends at 80 == EV -3.67 Histogram ends at 72 == EV -4 So, e.g. if the histo of your photo ends at level 207 it means that you'd need to overexpose by +2/3 stops in order to capture hull histogram (in other words to utilize the capability of the camera in the best possible way). Most cameras do not apply the sadRGB transfer function so the following table that is calculated for gamma 1.72 space (native gamma space of Mac systems) will often give more accurate estimation: Histogram ends at 255 == EV 0 Histogram ends at 223 == EV -0.33 Histogram ends at 195 == EV -0.67 Histogram ends at 170 == EV -1 Histogram ends at 149 == EV -1.33 Histogram ends at 130 == EV -1.67 Histogram ends at 114 == EV -2 Histogram ends at 100 == EV -2.33 Histogram ends at 87 == EV -2.67 Histogram ends at 76 == EV -3 Histogram ends at 67 == EV -3.33 Histogram ends at 58 == EV -3.67 Histogram ends at 51 == EV -4 Now, a totally another issue then is the way how you perceive the effect of the f/stops (aperture) when you look through the viewfinder and change the aperture setting of the lens (while keeping the DOF button pressed). In this situation the vision adapts (light adaptation, it behaves about logarithmicly) so the change of the aperture (that also has logarithmic scale) will be perceived as a change that is equal in "effect" or in "amount", stop after stop, so the perceived effect is about linear. That is the desired effect and infarct the very reason why the aperture scaling was chosen to be logarithmic. Timo Autiokari http://www.aim-dtp.net |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 20:44:10 +0200, Timo Autiokari
wrote: On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 11:04:15 -0800, wrote: reading digital photo histograms. The histogram that digital cameras show is not logarithmic nor linear. Thanks. I'm quickly out of my element. I'll keep reading. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Empty regions histogram on minolta dimage a2 | jos | Digital Photography | 2 | November 28th 04 09:05 PM |
5700 Histogram | Dave E | Digital Photography | 5 | September 2nd 04 12:48 PM |
What does a histogram tell me? | wolfee | Digital Photography | 14 | August 31st 04 07:08 PM |
What is the benefit of a histogram in flash photography? | PeterH | Digital Photography | 1 | July 18th 04 10:58 AM |