How long before DSLRS have human vision dynamic range?

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by RichA, Jun 9, 2005.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    No more blown out whites, bloomed out edges
    of things (like tree leaves against a bright sky)
    detail in the shadows on a cloudless day, etc?
    -Rich
     
    RichA, Jun 9, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Jeff R Guest

    Too bad about:

    * random floaters;
    * the dirty big blind spot;
    * shortsightedness at 1/2 MTBF, *and*
    * degrading performance during entire lifetime;
    * out of focus first thing in the morning;
    * being red-tinged after a party;
    * being inoperative 8 hrs a day (variable);
    * taking half an hour to develop low-light sensitivity;
    * the dog-ugly carrying case (also variable)
     
    Jeff R, Jun 9, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    That would be nice but no printer or monitor can show that either so
    you'd have to apply a curve to even see it. I think the human eye
    constantly changes it's exposure for each twitch into another range so
    it's really an illusion, only the center part is visible at any given
    moment. My guess is you'd need a super big sensor and a 64 bit or
    whatever file system that's non-standard and then apply the curves which
    would probably require manual tweaking.
     
    Paul Furman, Jun 9, 2005
    #3
  4. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    Because a print made that way would look FLAT. You don't see that human
    vision -IS- dynamic i.e. it adjusts for the changing light conditions as we
    move our focus point around.
     
    Stacey, Jun 9, 2005
    #4
  5. RichA

    skroob Guest

    Our cameras are already better than our eyes. Our eyes suck. Our brain is
    what makes everyting look so good. ;)
     
    skroob, Jun 9, 2005
    #5
  6. RichA

    Dirty Harry Guest

    Anyone tried to find thier blind spot? at about a foot away you can make an
    X the size of a quater dissapear. Might not be such a great feature on a
    lens.
    this is so crazy
    http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/cuius/idle/percept/blindspot.htm
     
    Dirty Harry, Jun 9, 2005
    #6
  7. RichA

    RichA Guest

    the dust eliminators do, use c>Anyone tried to find thier blind spot?
    at about a foot away you can make an
    Whether it's how we perceive things or not, an 50mm lens on a 35mm SLR
    (or digital with full frame) is inferior to an eye view. Unless it's
    a macro shot that gets down below what they eye can see. Even then,
    the contrast range issue is till there.
    But the major problem, and one that effects many photographs isn't the
    dynamic range problem, it's the lack of depth of an image versus what
    our eyes see. That one will take long time to address since they've
    had holograms for decades and they still don't look very good.
    -Rich
     
    RichA, Jun 10, 2005
    #7
  8. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    RichA wrote:

    You're confusing "depth" with stereo vision, they've had a solution to that
    for MANY decades! Guess you never had a viewmaster?
     
    Stacey, Jun 10, 2005
    #8
  9. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Do they still make them? They could make an electronic one, I guess.
    No more little 110 film squares.
     
    RichA, Jun 10, 2005
    #9
  10. RichA

    Matt Ion Guest

    ROFL!!


    ---
    avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
    Virus Database (VPS): 0523-7, 06/10/2005
    Tested on: 6/11/2005 12:31:42 AM
    avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
    http://www.avast.com
     
    Matt Ion, Jun 11, 2005
    #10
  11. RichA

    Pete D Guest

    There is a few of them with the D-SLR's anyway. ;-)
     
    Pete D, Jun 11, 2005
    #11
  12. RichA

    Jan Böhme Guest

    Not quite true, unless you extend the concept of "brain" into the
    actual eye. The sensor part of the retina isn't all that great, and
    the optics, even at best, is of a quality that wouldn't be accepted
    even in a cheap consumer-grade lens, that's right.

    But there is tons of image processing going on already in the retina,
    including correction for dynamic range.

    The visual system in the brain gets highly processed, refined, and
    highly compressed data from the retina.

    Incidentally, this is why it is so much more difficult to cure
    blindness by a retinal implant than it is to cure deafness by a
    cochlear one.

    Opticswise, the eye may suck. But its internal image processor is
    actually a bit more impressive than even the DIGIC II.

    Jan Böhme
    Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
    Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.
     
    Jan Böhme, Jun 11, 2005
    #12
  13. RichA

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    Highlight-sensing metering could do this, without more DR.
    Stay away from ISO 100. IMO, the lowest ISO on a DSLR should be
    reserved for low-contrast or high-key scenes, at least when using the
    default metering.
    As I've said many times before, using a filter that makes the overall
    response of the camera white can help here. On most DLSRs, the red
    channel is almost a stop darker than the green, and the blue channel is
    about a half-stop darker than the green. Using the right magenta
    filtering can bring the levels up. Also, make sure your exposure is
    fully saturated. It is easy for a camera's metering to under-expose an
    image with lots of bright areas; it tries to make the output grey, when
    in fact it should be almost white.

    Right now, most cameras seem to be limited to 12-bit RAW digitization,
    which is really poor for dynamic range, unless you intend to keep the
    shadows dark and not boost them. 14- or 16- bit digitization should do
    a lot better, *if* the readout circuitry can keep track of the local
    blackpoint. I think that instead of having the black pixels on two
    edges, they should be on all four edges so that horizontal and vertical
    blackpoint ramps can be established, to nearly eliminate banding.
    --
     
    JPS, Jun 12, 2005
    #13
  14. RichA

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    Our sense of depth comes from the stereo imaging, and the focus distance
    of the eyes. That will never happen in a traditional photograph.

    It also takes time for humans to learn to see any depth at all in
    photographs; we take it for granted because photographs and "realistic"
    paintings were invented before we were born, and we became accustomed to
    them in our relatively unconscious early years; people at the turn of
    the century in primitive cultures who never saw realistic images before
    could not see any depth at all in them; a vanishing point on a
    near-infinite wall created a triangle; not a vanishing rectangle.
    --
     
    JPS, Jun 12, 2005
    #14
  15. RichA

    Paul H. Guest


    Sorry, Jeff, but Sigma's SD9 and SD10 have already got your list covered.
     
    Paul H., Jun 14, 2005
    #15
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.