DR definition: Logarithmic ratio between the camera's full well capacity and its noise floor
Feb. 20, 2024
67
-
no, thats what was made up by the self appointed techeads. 😎
-
I wonder if I'm one of those self appointed techeads because I think that Arvo's defition is right.😏 But, if so, what I am?😜
I asked the Urban Dictionary; it answered:
'¯_(ツ)_/¯
Sorry, we couldn't find: techead
There are no definitions for this word.
Be the first to define it!'Btw. didumean tech head?😎😅
-
whats a noise floor 🤔 whats its value ( besides a guess) 🙄 whats the DR of film 😁 and the human eye 🙄
i like this quote " dynamic range measures the difference between the darkest and lightest values a sensor can record simultaneously"
-
Sorry. I've come to associate you with the 60MP one for some reason.
-
That isn't exactly right. It would be right if the camera just clipped the raw data at some point above black, but that is not common. The bottom end of DR is not a clear, precise event; it is an arbitrary aesthetic threshold. There is no limit to how low a signal a sensor can record; it is simply assumed that the noise will be too high below a certain level.
-
If we are talking about sensor DR, noise is almost always what determines where the bottom of the range is. There is no clipping of low exposure levels on the vast majority of sensors and their raws. Many raws have negative values in them, clipping nothing. Some clip at assumed black, which loses a tiny tad of SNR near black, but records all levels. A very small number clip slightly above black, but there is usually enough noise to maintain signal down to black through noise dithering.
-
Darkest values...where noise lives.
-
Absolutely, Anyone who disagrees with that can buy ISO 15739 and us what is incorrect ...
-
how do you apply that to film 😁
-
We do not apply that to film! How could we?
Arvo's comment included full well capacity which does not apply to film.
-
you can look at 100 examples of DR definition and noise is not mentioned. Bill invented it to try and compare cameras sensors, its a guess AT BEST.
i sent bill test images for the em1mk2 way back when, you take an image of a pink image on your screen at different iso, when i flicked back through the images the iso steps were clearly not consistent in brightness, bill never picked up on it because the files are run through a program. incamera raw files were clearly being manipulated shown by the inconsistent images. -
Haven't seen DA's review (so I can see what he actually said), but no, not even close:
The Nikon Z7.2, however, is closer, but still a long ways off:
That said, I'm not sure why there's such a huge difference -- the difference in sensor size is not that great to warrant such a difference, and it's hard to believe the electronic noise on the Fuji is so much less than any FF camera.
-
GB you need to watch dustin abbots testing, its on another planet compared to DPR test images. dustin abbot looks at colour accuracy, any camera can manipulate black noise reduction they have been doing it for years to make there cameras look better on paper. abbott evens ads that at 5 stops recovery the gfx colours are less saturated where even at pixel level the a74 was faultless. over exposure the a74 is 1 stop infront of the gfx not even close.
