Having used my D2x for a couple of weeks, I have a different take on this issue. I think earlier (lower resolution) DSLRs hid camera shake issues and now with the D2x we are back to where we were with film. Not really a big deal, just need to be careful like we use to. The other cameras just enabled us to be sloppier with technique and now its back to the old ways. The price of progress.
D2x Unforgiving
- Thread starter jklofft
- Start date
R
Removed User 2
Guest
I think 6mp is more like 35mm film.
And since we never really could know if a camera was front or back focusing with film (unless many expensive tests and missed shots) and since we could never actually enlarge to "100Percent" with film, I believe the D2X is a whole different animal, and much better too.
And let's not forget: We see those errors at 100Percent, which actually represents a 20x30 effective enlargement. If you view for web or print smaller prints, all things being equal, the focusing errors shouldn't show either!
The true error is viewing images at 100Percent while not really knowing what it actually represents.
And since we never really could know if a camera was front or back focusing with film (unless many expensive tests and missed shots) and since we could never actually enlarge to "100Percent" with film, I believe the D2X is a whole different animal, and much better too.
And let's not forget: We see those errors at 100Percent, which actually represents a 20x30 effective enlargement. If you view for web or print smaller prints, all things being equal, the focusing errors shouldn't show either!
The true error is viewing images at 100Percent while not really knowing what it actually represents.
This is something that is taking me quite some time to learn.
But I think you have a point.
I reckon my D2H was more unforgiving than the D2X
With the light we have here, I think the DR on the D2X makes it easier to shoot with.
Now I want more DR not more pixels !
With the light we have here, I think the DR on the D2X makes it easier to shoot with.
Now I want more DR not more pixels !
Simon,Simon said:
Please excuse my ignorance but, what does DR stand for? The only thing that comes to my mind is "Design Rule" for Camera File System.
As I am in the throes of a "D2X or Not" decision, I REALLY like these threads. The point about viewing at 100% is a great one, and I find that it applies to noise as well as to focus. I won't speak for anyone else, but I think we wrap ourselves around axles far too often by using that "Zoom" button in our software.
I remember when I first bought my D2H I was hearing much of the same as wel.
Intersting comment on the light in Sydney, I sure run into light issues here in Washington as well.
"DR" = Dynamic Range
I remember when I first bought my D2H I was hearing much of the same as wel.
Intersting comment on the light in Sydney, I sure run into light issues here in Washington as well.
"DR" = Dynamic Range
Thank you Retief.
I agree wholeheartedly!Simon said:
As Bill said, it means dynamic range. That's the number of light stops between pitch black and stark white in an image. It depends on a gazillion factors and has almost as many definitions. Here's a couple:SRA said:
Here is a very technical definition of dynamic range. If some one who really understands this could post an explanation, it would be appreciated!
Here's a more applicable definition of dynamic range along with discussion and processing tips from Norman Koren. With lots of technical bits about photo-processing, this makes a good read.
The article defines dynamic range as the signal to noise ratio of the sensor, measured using the difference (divider ratio really) between fully saturated sensor and no signal at all (pure noise). How does that tranlate in number of stops? One extra stop is twice as big a ratio (before applying the log formula). Both the counting in stops and the counting in dB allow one to get a representative idea without using numbers that spiral out of sight exponentially (literally!) :? ;-) It's a different, but similar way of counting though.
Well depth must be the level at which the sesnsor is saturated, which in colors would be pure white, but remember the sensor is monochromatic: it's the color filter in front of it, in the Bayer pattern that allows color to be captured. On the other end, the noise level is when nothing but the noise is registered (i.e. pitch black), and it looks to take very few electrons per sensor site... The rest is your typical signal to noise ratio formula, which is indeed the dynamic range, spelled differently.
The arcticle goes on showing how many bits are necessary to quantize that dynamic range with various sensors, and as long as enough bits are used, also shows that the lowest order bit(s) may actually be meaningless that they are just quantizing the noise: of course, the noise is not always represented by full number of bits either, which is a concept that many people have a hard time getting their mind around...
Thanks for this link Chris: quite interesting read instead.
Well depth must be the level at which the sesnsor is saturated, which in colors would be pure white, but remember the sensor is monochromatic: it's the color filter in front of it, in the Bayer pattern that allows color to be captured. On the other end, the noise level is when nothing but the noise is registered (i.e. pitch black), and it looks to take very few electrons per sensor site... The rest is your typical signal to noise ratio formula, which is indeed the dynamic range, spelled differently.
The arcticle goes on showing how many bits are necessary to quantize that dynamic range with various sensors, and as long as enough bits are used, also shows that the lowest order bit(s) may actually be meaningless that they are just quantizing the noise: of course, the noise is not always represented by full number of bits either, which is a concept that many people have a hard time getting their mind around...
Thanks for this link Chris: quite interesting read instead.
I want more dynamic range. But I don't think about it in terms of signal to noise or whatever aspects that are really just traits of the technologies involved. And I'm an engineer.
I just want a camera that can see at least as many stops as my brain can assemble. That is, the images we have in our heads aren't "RAW." Our brain only makes them look sharp, with high DR, etc. Our vision is more about the processing and perception than the squishy optics.
Makes me happy to see Fuji at least trying. Here's hoping they pull it off, in a fast responsive camera, of course with an F mount.
I just want a camera that can see at least as many stops as my brain can assemble. That is, the images we have in our heads aren't "RAW." Our brain only makes them look sharp, with high DR, etc. Our vision is more about the processing and perception than the squishy optics.
Makes me happy to see Fuji at least trying. Here's hoping they pull it off, in a fast responsive camera, of course with an F mount.
This is exactly where I stand. My expectation is for greater DR - and I agree kudos to Fuji for trying.Beezle said:
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2005
- Messages
- 12
Interesting thought. I'm not sure I have completely wrapped my head around the issue, but with vastly more DR would we need something like 64 bit color depth to avoid step transitions in subtle gradations?Iliah said:
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2005
- Messages
- 12
To me, going from a D100 to a D2x is like going from shooting Tri-X on 35mm for 8x10 prints, and going to a much finer grain film and printing 16x20.jklofft said:
It really doesn't have anything to do with digital. It is about finer resolution, and larger prints. Looking at a D2x image on screen at 100% is like looking at a 20x40 print with a magnifying glass.
I do not think so. The step transitions are caused by underexposing to hold the highlights, which in turn compressed the shadows. When we expand the shadows to recover the detail we create the step transitions.Robin Casady said:
With greater DR this would not be as necessary.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2005
- Messages
- 12
Steps are caused by there being too few numeric values to represent tone values. Underexposing is just one way to get there.hillrg said:
If you increase the tonal values that can be recorded, and then compress them into a small bit depth, I think you may get steps at some point.
Interesting. Is this an effect that can be noticed with the Fuji S3 files ?Robin Casady said:
I think your probably right.Robin Casady said:
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemojiCopyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC