A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest(waiting for specific offering)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #381  
Old January 18th 19, 11:10 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 696
Default Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest(waiting for specific offering)

On 2019-01-17 17:50, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 10:34:05 -0500, nospam


it's basic sampling theory, something which you clearly do not
understand at all.


What is the frequency of the signal being sampled?


That's the point. The sample of any pixel is a discrete sample for the
purpose of dynamic range. There is no time domain here.

If you were looking at image resolution, then you would find that
spatial sampling across a number of pixels can be largely compared to
sampling a time domain signal from a math POV.

But that is not about DR or how much information can fit in a sample of
so many bits.

--
"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
  #382  
Old January 19th 19, 12:45 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 17:04:58 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-01-17 17:31, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 11:19:16 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-01-17 09:22, Alan Browne wrote:

The link you pointed to was referring to quantization noise in the
frequency domain, not the amplitude which is the issue at hand here.

Ooops... I should have said "time domain".


Nevertheless, the principle remains, the digitization of a
non-identical source signal can only be an approximation of the
original signal. The differences/errors manifest themselves as noise.


Nothing to do with DR however... esp. not getting more than there is.


I agree that it has nothing to do with DR. As far as your second
comment, the argument has been about whether or not the ADC can
receive a wider DR than it can handle. The answer is yes, of course it
can, but all the ADC can output is inherent in it's bit width. This is
where all the argument has arisen. The DR inherent in the ADC is not
the same as the DR inherent in the sensor. It is the latter which is
tested and reported upon by DxO.

You may think that is a waste of time and even misleading. But it
isn't. The ADC doesn't create the image: the sensor does and the ADC
only handles the image at the start of a long and convoluted pipeline
which ends up on the much narrower DR of your screen.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #383  
Old January 19th 19, 01:37 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ron C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 415
Default Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest(waiting for specific offering)

On 1/18/2019 6:45 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 17:04:58 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-01-17 17:31, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 11:19:16 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-01-17 09:22, Alan Browne wrote:

The link you pointed to was referring to quantization noise in the
frequency domain, not the amplitude which is the issue at hand here.

Ooops... I should have said "time domain".

Nevertheless, the principle remains, the digitization of a
non-identical source signal can only be an approximation of the
original signal. The differences/errors manifest themselves as noise.


Nothing to do with DR however... esp. not getting more than there is.


I agree that it has nothing to do with DR. As far as your second
comment, the argument has been about whether or not the ADC can
receive a wider DR than it can handle. The answer is yes, of course it
can, but all the ADC can output is inherent in it's bit width. This is
where all the argument has arisen. The DR inherent in the ADC is not
the same as the DR inherent in the sensor. It is the latter which is
tested and reported upon by DxO.

You may think that is a waste of time and even misleading. But it
isn't. The ADC doesn't create the image: the sensor does and the ADC
only handles the image at the start of a long and convoluted pipeline
which ends up on the much narrower DR of your screen.

IMHO the real question was if/how one might see beyond
the firewall of the ADC to glean this additional DR information.
Thus far the answer has been a big NO.
[YMMV]
--
==
Later...
Ron C
--

  #384  
Old January 19th 19, 02:22 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 17:02:36 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-01-17 17:28, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 09:22:21 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-01-16 23:43, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 19:42:49 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-01-15 18:29, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 12:34:42 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-01-13 21:07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 10:06:13 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-01-12 21:15, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 09:25:23 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-01-11 18:18, Eric Stevens wrote:

The recorded output of the ADC is limited by the capabilities of the
ADC. But these have no effect on the capabilities of the sensor. If

If there is no way to encode the information, then that is the mootest
of moot points.

That may well be but, as I have several times said, it is possible to
scale the dynamic range of the sensor to fit the narrower dynamic
range of the ADC.

To which I've replied numberous times. In a nutshell, you're trading
one form of noise for another.

The 'scaling' is done during the conversion of analog to digital in
the ADC and involves no more noise than is inherent in any analog to
digital conversion.

I've pointed out quantization noise to you several times. Ignore it.
You ignore everything else.

You always get quantization noise when you digitize. That's what I
meant by 'inherent'.

No. A sample is a sample. It contains signal and _sampling_ source
noise (the noise of the thing being sampled and the noise of the ADC),
but not quantization noise.

In this case we are not considering sampling. We are dealing with
digitizing of a static (as in remains constant) charge in the pixel
well which has to be digitized as a proportion of the maximum charge
when the cell is filled.

Quantization noise is an artifact of data manipulation (such as scaling)
and is completely unavoidable when doing such operations.

Its also inevitable when digitizing an analog signal.

Which you clearly don't understand.

The link you pointed to was referring to quantization noise in the
frequency domain, not the amplitude which is the issue at hand here.

I was clearly referring to noise introduced by scaling or manipulation
(amplitude). But you will continue to hunt for anything that violates
the notion that there is more information in 14 bits than there is in 14
bits. There isn't. There can't be.


Frequency or amplitude: the principle is the same.


The difference here is very simple, however.

Here (photography) you are sampling an static analog signal that has
noise as part of the overall quantity. That noise is just random
numbers in the lower bits... No quantizuation noise at all.


Yes. That's analog noise, if there is such a term. And that noise will
later be digitised.

Then you claim something special is a happening. No matter what that
magic is (compression, dilation, re-mapping (LUT)), etc. will introduce
quantization noise when the information is extracted. Because: 14 bits.


There will always be quantization noise if only for the reason that
e.g. analog 10.5 in can on be digitized as 10 or 11. Either way there
is an error of -0.5 or +0.5.

This is _not_ related to time domain sampling quantization noise which
is a different beast (which in any case should be taken care of by
appropriate attention to Nyquist, but that's another story that belongs
to sampling a signal over time...).


I don't think Nyqust really comes into it as we are dealing with the
digitization of static values.

I have never argued that "there is more information in 14 bits than
there is in 14 bits". As you say, there can't be. What I have said
from the beginning is that an analog signal of _any_dynamic_range_ can
be coded in 14 bits. There is no reqirement imposed on the DR of the
source device.


The dynamic range is simply represented by bits of sample depth.


That's the dynamic range of the digitized signal.

That's
the simplest way to look at it. If there was some sort of compression
before that point then the benefit of it would be lost to quantization
noise in the representation in 14 bits and then "re-conversion" to
express it as more bits.


The ADC doesn't know anything about the sensor's DR as measured in
photons. All it knows is that is being asked to digitize a signal
which may be anywhere between 0V and 3.3V. It is this which is chopped
up into 12 bits or 14 bits or whatever.

There is another thing which has barely been touched upon. We don't
actually how Nikon (in this case) sets about coding the information
from the sensor when it packs it into the bit stream. In fact it makes
no conventional sense until it is unpacked by a raw decoder. We don't
even know that the sensor's ADC is 14 bits. We have just assumed that
it is.

But does it just convert itself to a 14 bit ADC when the menu is set
accordingly? I very much doubt it. But many cameras these days have DR
greater than 12 while only using 12 bit encoding.

All we know is that after a D800 etc has finished dealing with things
like demosaicing, tone mapping, white balance, denoising, sharpening,
compression it outputs a file which somewhere along the way has been
processed with a bit depth of 14.

It remains a fairy tale, IOW: TANSTAAFL.

I have said this in so many ways so many times that I'm not going to
try and repeat it any more.


That's a good thing. Because it is as wrong after n repetitions as it
was after the first.


Yes, but just how wrong is that?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #385  
Old January 19th 19, 02:26 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 17:10:41 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-01-17 17:50, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 10:34:05 -0500, nospam


it's basic sampling theory, something which you clearly do not
understand at all.


What is the frequency of the signal being sampled?


That's the point. The sample of any pixel is a discrete sample for the
purpose of dynamic range. There is no time domain here.


Exactly. Which is why I asked and no doubt why ****** evaded.

If you were looking at image resolution, then you would find that
spatial sampling across a number of pixels can be largely compared to
sampling a time domain signal from a math POV.


Yes, but it depends upon the method of sampling the pixels. But even
so, the actual sampling is one pixel at a time.

But that is not about DR or how much information can fit in a sample of
so many bits.


Quite, which is what I was hoping ****** would commit himself to
pointing out.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #386  
Old January 19th 19, 02:44 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

There is another thing which has barely been touched upon. We don't
actually how Nikon (in this case) sets about coding the information
from the sensor when it packs it into the bit stream. In fact it makes
no conventional sense until it is unpacked by a raw decoder.


nonsense. of course we do. shoot some test images and look at the data.

or take the lazy approach and look at what others have found.

We don't
even know that the sensor's ADC is 14 bits. We have just assumed that
it is.


are you claiming nikon is lying when they say it's 14 bits?

it's also not that hard to verify.

But does it just convert itself to a 14 bit ADC when the menu is set
accordingly? I very much doubt it.


what else would it do?

But many cameras these days have DR
greater than 12 while only using 12 bit encoding.


no they don't. if they have a 12 bit adc, they're limited to 12 stops,
thus the option for 14 bit.

All we know is that after a D800 etc has finished dealing with things
like demosaicing, tone mapping, white balance, denoising, sharpening,
compression it outputs a file which somewhere along the way has been
processed with a bit depth of 14.


which has a theoretical maximum of 14 stops, real world less than that.

It remains a fairy tale, IOW: TANSTAAFL.

I have said this in so many ways so many times that I'm not going to
try and repeat it any more.


That's a good thing. Because it is as wrong after n repetitions as it
was after the first.


Yes, but just how wrong is that?


very.
  #387  
Old January 19th 19, 02:44 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

it's basic sampling theory, something which you clearly do not
understand at all.

What is the frequency of the signal being sampled?


That's the point. The sample of any pixel is a discrete sample for the
purpose of dynamic range. There is no time domain here.


Exactly. Which is why I asked and no doubt why ****** evaded.


i didn't evade anything. i simply pointed out that you don't understand
the topic.
  #388  
Old January 19th 19, 03:47 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 19:37:31 -0500, Ron C wrote:

On 1/18/2019 6:45 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 17:04:58 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-01-17 17:31, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 11:19:16 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-01-17 09:22, Alan Browne wrote:

The link you pointed to was referring to quantization noise in the
frequency domain, not the amplitude which is the issue at hand here.

Ooops... I should have said "time domain".

Nevertheless, the principle remains, the digitization of a
non-identical source signal can only be an approximation of the
original signal. The differences/errors manifest themselves as noise.

Nothing to do with DR however... esp. not getting more than there is.


I agree that it has nothing to do with DR. As far as your second
comment, the argument has been about whether or not the ADC can
receive a wider DR than it can handle. The answer is yes, of course it
can, but all the ADC can output is inherent in it's bit width. This is
where all the argument has arisen. The DR inherent in the ADC is not
the same as the DR inherent in the sensor. It is the latter which is
tested and reported upon by DxO.

You may think that is a waste of time and even misleading. But it
isn't. The ADC doesn't create the image: the sensor does and the ADC
only handles the image at the start of a long and convoluted pipeline
which ends up on the much narrower DR of your screen.

IMHO the real question was if/how one might see beyond
the firewall of the ADC to glean this additional DR information.
Thus far the answer has been a big NO.
[YMMV]


I'm not aware that anyone has previously asked that question. I think
the answer is that it could be done by the decoder. Whether in the raw
file created by the camera or whether embedded in the raw decoder for
each nikon camera, there could be a factor to restore the original DR
subject only to the losses imposed by 14-bit digitizing and the noise
created by swapping the data from one format to another.

In any case these might be of interest
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/15353950
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/15363777
https://forum.nikonrumors.com/discus...ge-of-printers
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 03:37 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 11:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.