How to determine the best exposure for raw files

DonaldBpanorama_fish_eye
Offline2366 posts
2 years ago 2 years ago
@IliahBorg has written:

@DonaldB has written:

@IliahBorg has written:

@DonaldB has written:

live zebras finely tuned are un beatable for perfect "exposure evaluation"

You realize the meaning of the word "perfect", right?

no one is perfect.

How imperfect is the method you are using?

after last nights testing, its as close as it gets. at least fast raw viewer is getting used for these conversations. its been a valuable tool so far.
IliahBorgpanorama_fish_eye
Offline976 posts
2 years ago 2 years ago
@DonaldB has written:

@IliahBorg has written:

@DonaldB has written:

@IliahBorg has written:

@DonaldB has written:

live zebras finely tuned are un beatable for perfect "exposure evaluation"

You realize the meaning of the word "perfect", right?

no one is perfect.

How imperfect is the method you are using?

after last nights testing, its as close as it gets. at least fast raw viewer is getting used for these conversations.

Sorry I don't understand your answer.
We can continue when you will decide to post raw files, exposed by zebras and overexposed relative to zebras, under various lights, regular scenes as well as red flowers and blue flowers, a flower filling the frame.
JohnVickers likes this.
favorite1
DonaldBpanorama_fish_eye
Offline2366 posts
2 years ago 2 years ago
@IliahBorg has written:

@DonaldB has written:

@IliahBorg has written:

@DonaldB has written:

@IliahBorg has written:

@DonaldB has written:

live zebras finely tuned are un beatable for perfect "exposure evaluation"

You realize the meaning of the word "perfect", right?

no one is perfect.

How imperfect is the method you are using?

after last nights testing, its as close as it gets. at least fast raw viewer is getting used for these conversations.

Sorry I don't understand your answer.
We can continue when you will decide to post raw files, exposed by zebras and overexposed relative to zebras, under various lights, regular scenes as well as red flowers and blue flowers, a flower filling the frame.

Sorry I don't understand your answer.

sorry its as close to perfect as posable.

id like to post a utube of the lcd . but sorry it has my full name attached and not prepared to disclose for obvious reasons. i would like to but certain members have ruined the trust.
i havnt a tripod with me so cant even take a snapshot with my phone of the rear lcd capturing the zebras. you will have to wait till im home from my camping trip.
IliahBorgpanorama_fish_eye
Offline976 posts
2 years ago 2 years ago
@DonaldB has written:

certain members have ruined the trust

Don't even bring this up.

@DonaldB has written:

you will have to wait

You obviously misread the situation.
BillFerrishelp_outline
Hidden369 posts
2 years ago 2 years ago
@deejjjaaaa has written:

@BillFerris has written:

Actually, DSLRs newer than about 2013-15 and the modern crop of mirrorless bodies by Canon, Sony, Nikon and Fuji (representing the vast majority of all camera sales) are generally invariant starting somewhere in the ISO 400-800 range and continuing up to ISO 25600 or higher.

there is a difference between "invariant" and "invariant starting somewhere" ? if it "starting somewhere" then it is not invariant but only partially invariant ... that is it...

All ISO invariant ranges start somewhere.
BillFerrishelp_outline
Hidden369 posts
2 years ago 2 years ago
@deejjjaaaa has written:

@JohnVickers has written:

@deejjjaaaa has written:

@BillFerris has written:

Actually, DSLRs newer than about 2013-15 and the modern crop of mirrorless bodies by Canon, Sony, Nikon and Fuji (representing the vast majority of all camera sales) are generally invariant starting somewhere in the ISO 400-800 range and continuing up to ISO 25600 or higher.

there is a difference between "invariant" and "invariant starting somewhere" ? if it "starting somewhere" then it is not invariant but only partially invariant ... that is it...

I don't think that that is a helpful way of looking at the problem.

I am not looking at anything - I am simply stating that camera's with dual gain sensors are NOT invariant - that was the whole point of what Aptina did - to break the mold and gain in S/N ...

they might be perfectly invariant in some range of nominal ISO values and thus you can call them partially invariant - no issues w/ that...

Any camera having a range of ISOs across which it is invariant...is invariant.
Quarkcharmedpanorama_fish_eye
Offline184 posts
2 years ago 2 years ago
@BillFerris has written:

@deejjjaaaa has written:

@JohnVickers has written:

@deejjjaaaa has written:

@BillFerris has written:

Actually, DSLRs newer than about 2013-15 and the modern crop of mirrorless bodies by Canon, Sony, Nikon and Fuji (representing the vast majority of all camera sales) are generally invariant starting somewhere in the ISO 400-800 range and continuing up to ISO 25600 or higher.

there is a difference between "invariant" and "invariant starting somewhere" ? if it "starting somewhere" then it is not invariant but only partially invariant ... that is it...

I don't think that that is a helpful way of looking at the problem.

I am not looking at anything - I am simply stating that camera's with dual gain sensors are NOT invariant - that was the whole point of what Aptina did - to break the mold and gain in S/N ...

they might be perfectly invariant in some range of nominal ISO values and thus you can call them partially invariant - no issues w/ that...

Any camera having a range of ISOs across which it is invariant...is invariant.

Invariance it's always defined within some domain under certain transformations, so it was a moot point to start with. It's fine to define invariance of noise when ISO setting changes within a specified range.
DonaldBpanorama_fish_eye
Offline2366 posts
2 years ago 2 years ago
This explains what Sony have done to resolve the raw file histogram issue. this is not a replacement for Jims excellent article. but explains a few un-answered questions about Sonys latest camera inclusions.