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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest(waiting for specific offering)
On 02/01/2019 01:38, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens wrote: You are obviously wedded to 1 stop per bit. Why is that? math. Why for example can you not have 2 stops per bit, or pi stops per bit? As long as you scale the entire brightness range with the available 14 stops. because it doesn't work that way. think about what a stop means. FWIW, I don't follow the linearity - in fact I've often wondered why aperture, ISO and shutter speed aren't infinitely variable, especially with digital. This article takes me closer to understanding: https://expertphotography.com/understanding-fstops-stops-in-photography-exposure/ -- Cheers, Rob |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
On Tue, 01 Jan 2019 20:38:13 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: You are obviously wedded to 1 stop per bit. Why is that? math. Why for example can you not have 2 stops per bit, or pi stops per bit? As long as you scale the entire brightness range with the available 14 stops. because it doesn't work that way. think about what a stop means. Think about what a bit means. There is no reason why 1 bit = 1 stop, or vice versa. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 07:48:13 +0000, RJH wrote:
On 02/01/2019 01:38, nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: You are obviously wedded to 1 stop per bit. Why is that? math. Why for example can you not have 2 stops per bit, or pi stops per bit? As long as you scale the entire brightness range with the available 14 stops. because it doesn't work that way. think about what a stop means. FWIW, I don't follow the linearity - in fact I've often wondered why aperture, ISO and shutter speed aren't infinitely variable, especially with digital. This article takes me closer to understanding: https://expertphotography.com/understanding-fstops-stops-in-photography-exposure/ The author of that article is using 'stop' when he should be using 'exposure value'. But lets not get into that in this thread. It's confused enough already. :-) -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
In article , RJH wrote:
FWIW, I don't follow the linearity - in fact I've often wondered why aperture, ISO and shutter speed aren't infinitely variable, especially with digital. they are. f/stop always has been infinitely variable and shutter speed has been since electronic shutters. it also doesn't matter that much. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: https://expertphotography.com/unders...hotography-exp osure/ The author of that article is using 'stop' when he should be using 'exposure value'. But lets not get into that in this thread. It's confused enough already. :-) equivalent. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: think about what a stop means. Think about what a bit means. There is no reason why 1 bit = 1 stop, or vice versa. there is. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
-hh wrote:
nospam wrote: nope. it's *not* *possible* to resolve 37 stops with a 14 bit adc. How about an IRL wager to resolve this disagreement? I can offer Welch-proof terms. Nospam's statement as written is trivially true: x stops of resolution requires x bits. That is a fact of mathematics, but not a useful statement of what is needed for making images to be seen by humans. A print intended for normal viewing never needs more than 7 bits of luminance information. An image on backlit transparency might need nine at the outside. This is from a combination of the nature of the media and the nature of human vision. 37 stops is a ridiculously large range in any case. The difference between the brightest object our eyes can cope with - snow in full sunlight- and the dimmest - a sixth magnitude star - is only about 28 stops. Peter. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 20:18:21 -0000 (UTC), Peter Irwin
wrote: -hh wrote: nospam wrote: nope. it's *not* *possible* to resolve 37 stops with a 14 bit adc. How about an IRL wager to resolve this disagreement? I can offer Welch-proof terms. Nospam's statement as written is trivially true: x stops of resolution requires x bits. Apart from the fact that the initial discussion was about dynamic range rather than resolution, nospam seems unable to explain this. Are you able to do better? That is a fact of mathematics, but not a useful statement of what is needed for making images to be seen by humans. A print intended for normal viewing never needs more than 7 bits of luminance information. An image on backlit transparency might need nine at the outside. This is from a combination of the nature of the media and the nature of human vision. Yep. 37 stops is a ridiculously large range in any case. The difference between the brightest object our eyes can cope with - snow in full sunlight- and the dimmest - a sixth magnitude star - is only about 28 stops. I used 37 stops merely to take the argument into the general case rather than the specific case of the Nikon D850 under discussion. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
On Wed, 02 Jan 2019 08:25:37 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: think about what a stop means. Think about what a bit means. There is no reason why 1 bit = 1 stop, or vice versa. there is. If there is, you seem utterly unable to explain it. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: nope. it's *not* *possible* to resolve 37 stops with a 14 bit adc. How about an IRL wager to resolve this disagreement? I can offer Welch-proof terms. Nospam's statement as written is trivially true: x stops of resolution requires x bits. Apart from the fact that the initial discussion was about dynamic range rather than resolution, nospam seems unable to explain this. Are you able to do better? i explained it several times. don't blame others because you don't understand it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering) | Alfred Molon[_4_] | Digital Photography | 2 | December 24th 18 02:37 PM |
Please, tell me Zeiss's offering to the camera world won't be areskinned SONY!! | Neil[_9_] | Digital Photography | 1 | August 27th 18 01:00 PM |
Need a camera with specific features: | Gary Smiley | Digital Photography | 1 | May 22nd 06 02:31 AM |
Canon Offering $600+ Rebate on Digital Camera Equipment (3x Rebate Offers) | Mark | Digital Photography | 6 | November 4th 04 10:27 AM |