New DSLRs still with 12-bit conversion only

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by RichA, Aug 10, 2006.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    There are people scanning 4x5 film at 48 bit depth in order not to ruin
    the images when they are manipulated digitally. Isn't it time for
    consumer
    DSLRs to at least go to 14 bits? Most professional CCD cameras provide

    14 bit conversion or higher now.
     
    RichA, Aug 10, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Scott W Guest

    No real need to go past 14 but 14 would be very nice, even 13 would
    help a lot.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Aug 10, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    bmoag Guest

    The fact that you cannot see those 14 bits of color information on a monitor
    or in any printing process is beside the point. That being the case you
    should hold out for 16 bit color. Those idiots are ruining their 4x5
    masterpieces with only 14 bit color.
     
    bmoag, Aug 10, 2006
    #3
  4. RichA

    Scott W Guest

    The dynamic range of a DSLR is limited by the 12 bit converter, 14
    would give it a greater range.
    This would allow to pull out more detail in the shadow areas, or keep
    from blowing out highlight as soon.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Aug 10, 2006
    #4
  5. RichA

    w.beckley Guest

    Well, "those idiots," if we're to trust the original poster's sources,
    aren't ruining their masterpeices with only 14 bit color... they're
    using 16 bit per channel color (48 bit simply being another way of
    talking about 16 bit per channel color). 42 bit would be the same as 14
    bit per channel.

    I'm all for 16 bits per channel out of our cameras... the software
    supports it, so it seems a waste that the cameras don't. PhaseOne's
    latest backs are 16 bit, so it certainly isn't beyond our technology. I
    wonder if Canon's next big announcement this month might make that
    jump, at least to 14. After all, all early reports suggest that the
    Digic III is quite a capable image processor...

    Regardless of who moves the DSLR segment to it, we really need to jump
    to 16 bit per channel color... more than megapixels, at this point bit
    depth is becoming very important (as part of dynamic range, which is
    the next great frontier for advancing digital images if you ask me).

    Will
     
    w.beckley, Aug 11, 2006
    #5
  6. RichA

    tomm42 Guest

    Doesn't the Leica digital back give 16 bit? If you have a spare $10K.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, Aug 11, 2006
    #6
  7. That's nuts. There's no way that most of those bits can be anything but
    noise.
     
    Andrew Koenig, Aug 11, 2006
    #7
  8. I do not believe that many scanners would have 16-bit converters. Could
    you name some make/model?

    Many/most/all scanners can output the final image data in 48-bit RGB
    mode, and so can many/most/all the dSLRs too.
    No, since they only have something about 9 stops of dynamic range. So 10
    bit conversion is enough, 12 bits is an overkill already.

    Note that 12-bit conversion results image data that is said to be 3*12=
    36 bit deep.
    What are these professional CCD cameras, could you please name some
    Make/Model?

    Timo Autiokari
    http://www.aim-dtp.net
     
    Timo Autiokari, Aug 11, 2006
    #8
  9. RichA

    Scott W Guest

    Do this simple task, take a shot that has a pretty deep shadow at iso
    100, now take the same same shot at iso 400, the iso 400 shot will have
    more detail in the shadows. Note that the CCD has the same exposure in
    both cases. A good 14 bit converter would pick up this detail with out
    the need for switching to ISO 400.

    In fact since changing the ISO of camera is just a gain change a camera
    that has enough
    bits in the converter would have no need for anything but the lowest
    ISO setting.

    BWT if you are only getting 9 stops out of your DSLR there is a real
    problem there, are you shooting raw or JPEG, note that not shooting raw
    will rob you of at least two stops of range if not a bit more.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Aug 11, 2006
    #9
  10. RichA

    ian Guest

    the sony does it already.
     
    ian, Aug 11, 2006
    #10
  11. Pretty much all higher end scanners are 16-bit, e.g.:
    Nikon 5000 ED
    http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=98&productNr=9238
    Haven't you gotten your test charts to work yet? If you did get
    a quality setup working, you would see this is a false statement.
    You are stating color bit depth but what is important in dynamic
    range is the bit depth per color.
    Most of the models on this page are 16-bit:
    http://www.britastro.org/vss/ccdtable.html

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Aug 12, 2006
    #11
  12. Technically, if you state that "most" of those bits are noise,
    that would mean 9 out of 16 are noise. I scan 4x5 film with a
    12-bit/channel scanner and find I can do a better job of extracting
    details, especially in highlights than I can with 8-bit scans.
    I need to work less with graduated neutral density filters
    too, and that is with velvia! While I don't believe
    16-bits are needed for film scanning, 12-bits are better than 8 in my
    experience.

    Roger
    photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Aug 12, 2006
    #12
  13. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Finger Lakes, SBIG, Mamamatsu, Apogee. I think they all offer 14 bit
    or better.
     
    RichA, Aug 12, 2006
    #13
  14. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Would it mean less noise if done this way?
     
    RichA, Aug 12, 2006
    #14
  15. RichA

    Tom Ross Guest


    It's a pity that none of those companies offers a decent DSLR.
    Consumer, professional, or otherwise.

    TR
     
    Tom Ross, Aug 13, 2006
    #15
  16. RichA

    RichA Guest

    If they did, it would cost about 10x what a Canon 1DsMkII does.
     
    RichA, Aug 13, 2006
    #16
  17. I have made test shots with both D60 and MK2, both have just slightly
    over 9 stops range. I have not had the time to finish a page about them,
    there is plenty to do with result handing, most of the DR evaluations
    that I have seen manage the results incorrectly.
    That is very so. I merely tried to explain to RichA that 48 bits is the
    same as 16 bits/channel. And that those 16-bits are just the A/D
    converter bits (or the bit-depth of the file format) not the DR of the
    image data.
    RickA mentioned both "DSLRs" and "professional CCD cameras", from that I
    understood that the question was about common color digital SLR cameras.

    Are any of the cameras mentioned on the abve web page color digital
    SLRs? I'm very well aware that there are scientific digital cameras with
    16-bit converters (and with the required cooling).

    Timo Autiokari
     
    Timo Autiokari, Aug 13, 2006
    #17
  18. John A. Stovall, Aug 13, 2006
    #18
  19. Yes, it has always been 16bits.
     
    John A. Stovall, Aug 13, 2006
    #19
  20. Leica offers you 16bits in a great DSLR and soon in a great
    rangefinder.
     
    John A. Stovall, Aug 13, 2006
    #20
    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.