Assertions are not necessarily facts. In this case, for that to be true, the a7IV would have to be dramatically different from the a7, a7II, a7III, a7R, a7RII, a7RIII, a7RIV, a9, a9II, a7S, and a7SII, all of which I have tested.
Assertions are not necessarily facts. In this case, for that to be true, the a7IV would have to be dramatically different from the a7, a7II, a7III, a7R, a7RII, a7RIII, a7RIV, a9, a9II, a7S, and a7SII, all of which I have tested.
Yes, most of the Sigma/Foveon non-Quattro cameras were thus, including my beloved SD9.
Much of the exposure hot air over on DPR was generated by those who were unable to cope with being able to clip "raw" data at any ISO ... as opposed to the higher the ISO, the more the raw data headroom., giving rise to the common "I always set ISO to 200".
Sigma experimented with an AFE in the DP2x and the SD15 and finally included one in all Quattro models. I guess that one AFE chip puts out less heat than three ADC chips.
Waiter: "more noise in your image, Sir?"
Not until you spell my name right πππ
I think the subject is still 'open' at the moment. Let's see how it develops.
Alan
Once a camera moves into someoneβs reality bubble it start behaving differently π.
@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...
@xpatUSA has written:Allan or Bob: now that this thread now seems to have the Sony "a74" (whatever that is) as the gold standard for determining the best exposure for raw files, should it be now moved to the "Sony Camera" category ?!
Not until you spell my name right πππ
Oops ... apologies !!
I think the subject is still 'open' at the moment. Let's see how it develops.
Looks like the "a74" proponent is taking a break ...
Looks like the "a74" proponent is taking a break ...
Hasn't worked out that eccentric spelling is a sure telltale of denied former accounts.
@xpatUSA has written:Allan or Bob: now that this thread now seems to have the Sony "a74" (whatever that is) as the gold standard for determining the best exposure for raw files, should it be now moved to the "Sony Camera" category ?!
Assertions are not necessarily facts. In this case, for that to be true, the a7IV would have to be dramatically different from the a7, a7II, a7III, a7R, a7RII, a7RIII, a7RIV, a9, a9II, a7S, and a7SII, all of which I have tested.
"HLG Mode as a hack for perfect Raw exposure", www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a7r-mark-iii-review/4
For the record, based on my tests I disagree.
@xpatUSA has written:Alan or Bob: now that this thread now seems to have the Sony "a74" (whatever that is) as the gold standard for determining the best exposure for raw files, should it be now moved to the "Sony Camera" category ?!
Assertions are not necessarily facts. In this case, for that to be true, the a7IV would have to be dramatically different from the a7, a7II, a7III, a7R, a7RII, a7RIII, a7RIV, a9, a9II, a7S, and a7SII, all of which I have tested.
Agreed. Never owned or tried a Sony, so my question was a bit tongue-in-cheek.
At least I now know that an "a74" is actually an Ξ±7 IV aka a Sony ILCE7M4.
@DonaldB has written: @Quarkcharmed has written: @DonaldB has written: @Quarkcharmed has written: @DonaldB has written:just shot an image useing my zebras and they show more information as to what is blown in camera than your raw viewer π your raw viewer shows a tiny hump, my camera show 4 hairline strips with zebras π
That's because most of the time (if not all the time) the in-camera histogram is more conservative so to say and shows highlight clipping where there's no clipping (or less clipping) in raw.
Bigger zebras or bigger spikes in the histogram doesn't mean there's 'more information'. It's actually less information than in raw histogram.
maybe on your camera but not my a74
Hmm what exactly is different on your a74, out of what I said above?
as ive said before the incamera histogram it just doesnt show fine readings. heres a test i just did. put a zoom a constant aperture on your camera, now on wide angle expose on a light . me an oval caravan outside light. and stop down so your zebras are just flickering on the light. now look at your histogram its miles from clipping right ?
Nope not right. Depends on the conditions.
@DonaldB has written:now zoom in while looking at the histogram, as you zoom look at the histogram and the light will appear and clipped
The in-camera histogram loses spatial information (it doesn't show where the clipping is), zebras lose information on distribution/light intensity. Both are based on jpeg/rgb processed image, distorted against raw because of applied white balance. You seem to fail to understand that white balance skews original raw rgb channels.
RawDigger shows more accurate information on raw data, both histogram and spatial. Again it looks like you don't understand the difference between in-camera RGB histogram and raw histogram in RawDigger.
If RawDigger shows clipping, there's no way to recover the blown areas.
If RGB in-camera histogram or zebras shows clipping, there may still be room for recovery if you shoot raw.That's why there's less information in in-camera histogram or zebras than in a raw histogram. Unfortunately there's no camera that shows a raw histogram as far as I know. At least it's neither of Sony cameras. The lack of raw histogram can be compensated by different techniques discussed in this thread but they all have caveats.
thats what your not understanding. the camera shows extremally fine line clipping and so does fastraw its an identical match . you can take the raw into ACR and also fast raw and can not recover the blown high lights. ARE WE CLEAR NOW . you obviously dont play with your cameras much to draw your own conclusions.
I don't even have live zebras (only in post-shooting previews)...
Thats very poor on canons behalf .as i said live zebras finely tuned are un beatable for perfect "exposure evaluation" raw digger is not an exposure evaluation tool. in fact its useless in the field.
live zebras finely tuned are un beatable for perfect "exposure evaluation"
You realize the meaning of the word "perfect", right?
@xpatUSA has written:Allan or Bob: now that this thread now seems to have the Sony "a74" (whatever that is) as the gold standard for determining the best exposure for raw files, should it be now moved to the "Sony Camera" category ?!
Assertions are not necessarily facts. In this case, for that to be true, the a7IV would have to be dramatically different from the a7, a7II, a7III, a7R, a7RII, a7RIII, a7RIV, a9, a9II, a7S, and a7SII, all of which I have tested.
A1 a74 a7r5 use the latest processors. not sure about the a7s3
@DonaldB has written:live zebras finely tuned are un beatable for perfect "exposure evaluation"
You realize the meaning of the word "perfect", right?
i always remember sitting for a 4 hour celestial navigation exam and walking out in 90 mins. the next week i got my results 99% the teacher said i got 100% but no one is perfect.
Unfortunately there's no camera that shows a raw histogram as far as I know.
Does it matter ? that would be like saying an analogue multimeter is better than a digital because its measuring the raw voltage.
Jim, I just started to read your article and I got to this bit:
The standard deviation of the electrons is also the root mean square (RMS) measure of the noise. Reducing the above to an equation:
RMS noise = Number of electrons countedBut the equation does not say what the text is. The text says "The standard deviation of the electrons is also the root mean square (RMS) measure of the noise."
But that is not the number of electrons counted. or is it? If it is, how is the standard deviation of the electrons= the number of electrons counted? I am confusedAlan
Once one enters the quantum world - our concept of continuum is no longer completely accurate. Both photons and electrons are particles and while exposure in lux-seconds can be viewed as the energy of the incident wave - its statistics are a quantized version of that in that the number of photons incident. Such processes are described statistically as a Poisson process which describes the arrival of objects, be in cars at an intersection, rain in a rain gauge or photons on a photodetector. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise
@AlanSh has written:Jim, I just started to read your article and I got to this bit:
The standard deviation of the electrons is also the root mean square (RMS) measure of the noise. Reducing the above to an equation:
RMS noise = Number of electrons countedBut the equation does not say what the text is. The text says "The standard deviation of the electrons is also the root mean square (RMS) measure of the noise."
But that is not the number of electrons counted. or is it? If it is, how is the standard deviation of the electrons= the number of electrons counted? I am confusedAlan
Once one enters the quantum world - our concept of continuum is no longer completely accurate. Both photons and electrons are particles and while exposure in lux-seconds can be viewed as the energy of the incident wave - its statistics are a quantized version of that in that the number of photons incident. Such processes are described statistically as a Poisson process which describes the arrival of objects, be in cars at an intersection, rain in a rain gauge or photons on a photodetector. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise
Yes. the correct equations are:
@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?