the NR was applied in PP photoshop and topaz. as i keep saying noise reduction does not increase DR period. the cap clearly shows this.
June 27, 2025
122
-
-
old age reduces hearing DR 😁 i wound up an old watch the other week and had to ask my daughter if she could hear it ticking and she said clearly , i couldnt 😌
-
All Dolby audio noise reduction uses filters. There is no Dolby D. B & C were used on cassettes.
-
Dolby D = Dud, it was all marketing, I owned an electronics repair shop back in the 70s and repaired many a cassette deck including hi end Disco consoles where the finals cost $120 back then, one guy had gone through 4 pairs and they kept blowing till i discovered that the drivers where over biased so i just turned them down a little and job done 😎 they were the good old days, audio sig generator, RF sig generator, 4in osiliscope and a frequency counter ,couple of hand made lodgic probes and away you went including transceiver repairs and modifacations. and a good 3v mini scope instant iron.
-
Apparently we are talking about quite different things.
We (I mean most technical people here) use DR in meaning "maximum signal / noise floor in recorded data"; noise floor is often taken as signal value, where SNR (signal to noise ratio) = 1. As sensors [usually¹] are linear devices, then this roughly corresponds to ability record scene DR without too much noise.
You are mostly concerned about clipping highlights - at least your examples show that. In old film times this was important property, esp because film is not linear media - you could record wide scene DR (say 14 stops) into much narrower film DR (say 8 stops) and I think most talk about DR concerned particular film ability to record some dynamics both in higlights and shadows at the same time.
Those definitions are not exactly compatible - both characterize some range of recordable information, but are based on totally different ideas.
For first meaning (technical definition) it is clear that noise removal (NR) lowers noise floor and thereby increases DR.
For second meaning (visual definition) noise is almost not important and NR does not change almost anything - higlights will not be recovered, (deep) shadows are not lifted and so on.
¹ There may exist digital sensors, having non-linear response - but those would be quite hard to use in everyday photography, making color conversion algorithmically complex task. Then there are sensors (eg Sony automotive), which contain pixels with different sensitivity - both are linear, combining them one can get very wide dynamic range.
-
But the Exposure slider doesn't alter exposure, it's just named "Exposure" and only adjusts the brightness, modifies the way the data is displayed. How do you know that it doesn't weight the adjustment or add a perceptual intent?
Also, again you're looking at an RGB computer screen post conversion to your chosen colour profile. The DR of the screen if fixed. So it's not possible to observe a higher DR in any file directly. All you're doing (paradoxically) is compressing the DR in the RAW until it fits within the fixed DR of the screen. That's basically what the basic sliders do, stretch and compress the data so you can make it fit into the fixed DR of your output device with pleasing colour and contrast.
I'm not quite sure what it is you think you're doing.
-
noise reduction is no different than veiling glare, veiling glare reduces DR period, you have the equipment do the test to back your claims.
-
If we refer back to Alan‘s initial question, the answer is quite clear: nobody here! 😂
David
-
my image was pushed which means that the image was darker. i was lifting the darks , which part dont you understand. the cap has mixed patterns in black and grey, do you see the NR image does not out detail the image with no NR applied. can you/we" technical people" not see with your own eyes 🤔this is a photography forum.😊
-
I do not understand, how this all is related to dynamic range :)
the cap has mixed patterns in black and grey, do you see the NR image does not out detail the image with no NR applied. the maths is flawed.
NR does not amplify details, it removes noise. If there is too much (or wrong kind) of NR applied then this removes details - but again, all this (details) is not related to dynamic range.
Give us RAW file to experiment, I'm pretty sure someone here can create pretty noiseless and detailed image from it :) Comparing screenshots of who knows how processed JPG images is relatively pointless.
-
i dont mean to be rude, but dont you own a camera and do your own tests.
-
I have absolutely no idea what your point is.
The thread is supposed to be explaining the relationship between Dual Gain, how it is implemented with regard to ISO and the resultant effect on Dynamic Range.
I don't see how you can drag pp noise reduction into that explanation.
-
Heh, I don't do (and don't need) any tests - I (less or more) know my camera limitations and also PP software (DXO) possibilties, I have not that interested in theoretical DR (or other) values. Sure I can always discuss on technical topics :)
-
i like to discuss topics with practical examples, in fact i find most technical photography topics misleading.
-
This I can agree :)
But what to do - many people, not able to create good images, but having technical background (like me), like to discuss over technical terms - it is much simpler than create something enjoyable... Sure such discussions often deviate very far from real photography.
