Latitude

I am interested in Fuji's latest cameras and I have a novice question:- Some
camera manufacturers claim to have sensors with a greater dynamic range than
their competitors. Is there any item in the specifications which measures
dynamic range? If not, why not? Surely it must be possible to say take
pictures of a target with standard lighting and at different exposures and
compare the maximum and minimum exposure values.

"YDOD" wrote in message
...
I am interested in Fuji's latest cameras and I have a novice question:-
Some camera manufacturers claim to have sensors with a greater dynamic
range than their competitors. Is there any item in the specifications which
measures dynamic range? If not, why not? Surely it must be possible to say
take pictures of a target with standard lighting and at different exposures
and compare the maximum and minimum exposure values.


I have no doubt that those figures will have been worked out somewhere in
the depths of the research departments.

However my natural cynicism suggests that it is very unlikely they would be
published.

It is so much easier and safer to make non-specific and non-actionable
statements like "Better Xxxx" and "Greater Xxxx", which do not specify
Better or Greater than what, and therefore can not be disproved.

Roy G

Roy G wrote:
"YDOD" wrote in message
...
I am interested in Fuji's latest cameras and I have a novice question:-
Some camera manufacturers claim to have sensors with a greater dynamic
range than their competitors. Is there any item in the specifications which
measures dynamic range? If not, why not? Surely it must be possible to say
take pictures of a target with standard lighting and at different exposures
and compare the maximum and minimum exposure values.


I have no doubt that those figures will have been worked out somewhere in
the depths of the research departments.

However my natural cynicism suggests that it is very unlikely they would be
published.

It is so much easier and safer to make non-specific and non-actionable
statements like "Better Xxxx" and "Greater Xxxx", which do not specify
Better or Greater than what, and therefore can not be disproved.

Roy G




Perhaps. But my Fujifilm DSLR has the widest dynamic range of any DSLR
made. It does it by using 2 sensors. One for highlights and one for shadows.

I've used Fuji cameras off and on for nearly 20 years and have many
criticism's of them but one thing I could never complain about is their
claims about cameras. If they say their new cameras have a wide DR, you
can count on them having it.

There is no definitive standard of measurement for dynamic range. Until
an ISO standard exists to make measurements against, no one can compare it.

If Sigma said they had a wide DR camera, I'd disbelieve it outright.

With programs like Photoshop being able to compress the DR of a picture,
trying to measure it is a waste of resources. I can take a shot from a
D60 and use DxO, Lightroom, Corel Paint or Photoshop to make it
identical to my Fuji's dynamic range.

I'd imagine with software to adjust the DR so easily, there is little
point in applying a lot of money to developing a sensor to do the same
thing... Is there?

D-Mac.info

D-Mac wrote:

Perhaps. But my Fujifilm DSLR has the widest dynamic range of any DSLR
made. It does it by using 2 sensors. One for highlights and one for
shadows.

I've used Fuji cameras off and on for nearly 20 years and have many
criticism's of them but one thing I could never complain about is
their claims about cameras. If they say their new cameras have a wide
DR, you can count on them having it.

I also use Fuji cameras - S3 Pro, E900, S9500 - and one of my reasons
for choosing Fuji was dynamic range. However, most of their more recent
models haven't been as good for this as some of the earlier models -
I'm awaiting detailed reviews of the F200EXR with interest.

There is no definitive standard of measurement for dynamic range.
Until an ISO standard exists to make measurements against, no one can
compare it.

Which is partly why it's not usually quoted in manufacturers'
specifications. However, good reviews often attempt to measure it, and
describe their testing methods. As there are several ways to measure
DR, these are not directly comparable, but figures from the same
reviewer, measured the same way, should provide a way of comparing
particular cameras tested with the same method.

http://www.dpreview.com includes some DR figures in their reviews,
measured by the step wedge method, and http://www.imaging-resource.com/
give very detailed DR analysis using Imatest. http://www.dxomark.com/
gives detailed tests of sensor performance, including DR.

If Sigma said they had a wide DR camera, I'd disbelieve it outright.

With programs like Photoshop being able to compress the DR of a
picture, trying to measure it is a waste of resources. I can take a
shot from a D60 and use DxO, Lightroom, Corel Paint or Photoshop to
make it identical to my Fuji's dynamic range.

I'd imagine with software to adjust the DR so easily, there is little
point in applying a lot of money to developing a sensor to do the same
thing... Is there?

Post processing software can't do anything to widen DR that isn't there
in the original RAW file. Once a highlight is blown to bright white,
it's gone, and once shadows are lost in the noise, nothing can bring
back the detail.
--
Alex Monro
Exeter, UK
Running on Linux (Kubuntu 7.1)

Marty Fremen wrote:
"YDOD" wrote:
I am interested in Fuji's latest cameras and I have a novice
question:- Some camera manufacturers claim to have sensors with a
greater dynamic range than their competitors. Is there any item in the
specifications which measures dynamic range? If not, why not? Surely
it must be possible to say take pictures of a target with standard
lighting and at different exposures and compare the maximum and
minimum exposure values.

The trouble is that dynamice range is somewhat subjective. Although the
highlight end has a sharp cutoff, the shadows end of the exposure
doesn't end abruptly but gradually gets lost in noise. If you are
willing to accept higher noise levels in the dark areas of the picture
then you effectively increase the working dynamic range. What is acceptable
will be affected by various factors including noise reduction strategies
and the contrast of the subject.




There ARE technical specifications of dynamic range. Trouble is, there
are several, and they are slightly different. Latitude is really more
appropriate for film, in my opinion.

Also, keep in mind that ANY digital camera has far more dynamic range
than printing inks (ink on paper) or even photographic prints (screen
printers). Thus the dynamic range of the camera is only of concern if
you are going to be doing a lot of editing of the image.

If you are shooting a static scene, you can use a tripod and the HDR
(high dynamic range) technique that PS and other software has these days.

signal to noise ratio, both total range and incremental, and total range
in stops are a couple of the more common.