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.

If there is, you seem utterly unable to explain it.

i did, as do numerous engineering text books.

it's clear you aren't interested in learning anything.

In article , Peter Irwin
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,

yep

but not a useful statement of what
is needed for making images to be seen by humans.

the issue was that dxo claimed that several cameras which have a 14 bit
adc could produce nearly 15 stops of dynamic range.

that's not possible.

as i said before, an 14 bit adc limits the dynamic range to a
theoretical maximum of 14 stops.

we live in an imperfect world, so the actual dynamic range, from an
actual camera, will be less.

the nikon d800 series cameras are incredibly good, so it's likely not
that much less than 14, but it's definitely less and unquestionably not
more than 14.

nospam wrote:
In article , Peter Irwin
wrote:

the issue was that dxo claimed that several cameras which have a 14 bit
adc could produce nearly 15 stops of dynamic range.

that's not possible.

You have to give up linear encoding, but sure it is possible.
It might be perfectly sensible to have a toe and shoulder to the
curve which would allow 15 stops of dynamic range encoded in 14 bits.

I do not know if that is what is happening, but it would be a reasonable
thing to do.

A major departure from linear encoding anywhere other than the toe and
shoulder would not be a good idea.

Peter.
--

On 2019-01-03 10:58, Peter Irwin wrote:
nospam wrote:
In article , Peter Irwin
wrote:

the issue was that dxo claimed that several cameras which have a 14 bit
adc could produce nearly 15 stops of dynamic range.

that's not possible.

You have to give up linear encoding, but sure it is possible.
It might be perfectly sensible to have a toe and shoulder to the
curve which would allow 15 stops of dynamic range encoded in 14 bits.

I do not know if that is what is happening, but it would be a reasonable
thing to do.

A major departure from linear encoding anywhere other than the toe and
shoulder would not be a good idea.

It used to be common to assume about 1.5 bits worth of noise to any ADC
sample so you'd have to account for that (even if less than 1.5 bits
worth, noise is ... noise).

"Compressing" (Stretching, really) any portion of the curve (toe and
shoulder included) means increased quantization noise, so not so sure
the alleged 15 stops would really translate well to image quality.

--
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we
need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
- unknown protester

In article , Peter Irwin
wrote:

the issue was that dxo claimed that several cameras which have a 14 bit
adc could produce nearly 15 stops of dynamic range.

that's not possible.

You have to give up linear encoding, but sure it is possible.

i said that early on, however, camera sensors are linear, so that does
not apply.

It might be perfectly sensible to have a toe and shoulder to the
curve which would allow 15 stops of dynamic range encoded in 14 bits.

I do not know if that is what is happening, but it would be a reasonable
thing to do.

it's not happening and it would overly complicate things to do so.

A major departure from linear encoding anywhere other than the toe and
shoulder would not be a good idea.

yep.

On Wed, 02 Jan 2019 19:19:34 -0500, nospam
wrote:

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.

So you say.

don't blame others because you don't understand it.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 02 Jan 2019 19:19:36 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Peter Irwin
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,

yep

but not a useful statement of what
is needed for making images to be seen by humans.

the issue was that dxo claimed that several cameras which have a 14 bit
adc could produce nearly 15 stops of dynamic range.

that's not possible.

as i said before, an 14 bit adc limits the dynamic range to a
theoretical maximum of 14 stops.

You keep saying that but you never say why.

we live in an imperfect world, so the actual dynamic range, from an
actual camera, will be less.

the nikon d800 series cameras are incredibly good, so it's likely not
that much less than 14, but it's definitely less and unquestionably not
more than 14.

Repitition is not explanation.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 02 Jan 2019 19:19:35 -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.

i did, as do numerous engineering text books.

it's clear you aren't interested in learning anything.

On the contrary, I am very interested in learning, but you seem
incapable of teaching.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 15:58:21 -0000 (UTC), Peter Irwin
wrote:

nospam wrote:
In article , Peter Irwin
wrote:

the issue was that dxo claimed that several cameras which have a 14 bit
adc could produce nearly 15 stops of dynamic range.

that's not possible.

You have to give up linear encoding, but sure it is possible.
It might be perfectly sensible to have a toe and shoulder to the
curve which would allow 15 stops of dynamic range encoded in 14 bits.

I do not know if that is what is happening, but it would be a reasonable
thing to do.

A major departure from linear encoding anywhere other than the toe and
shoulder would not be a good idea.

Peter.

You really should have linear encoding, but there is no reason why the
encoded range should be anything in particular. From a practical point
of view it should encompass the range of whatever is being encoded.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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.

i did, as do numerous engineering text books.

it's clear you aren't interested in learning anything.

On the contrary, I am very interested in learning,

then why do you argue with what people tell you, including snipping
examples and explanations you claim to want to see?

but you seem
incapable of teaching.

ad hominem.

stop blaming others for your own shortcomings and go learn something.