[Tig] Is there anybody out there

[Deanan]

(hopefully in plain text this time but Thunderbird seems to be wanting 
to ignore that setting)
> #1 If we shoot a white peace of paper against a black background. with 
> 8 stops difference,any" Bayer-format-sensors" or "Foveon-sensors" will 
> not hold detail in both extreme. 5 is about the limit!  If the 
> highlights really are all blown out and you
> you can't light the entire scene to match the dynamic range, you'll 
> have to sacrifice shadows or highlights. (I've learn that from my 
> favorites DPs :)
We haven't done that particular test but I can try to do it for you if 
you're interested. 
If you're referring to camera's like the the Sony F950, then yes you 
would lose the detail quickly.

> #2  Yes with double exposure and HDR we can get a great deal of data 
> in either end of the tone scale .But I would not imply that rendering 
> and encoding for a target of let say 2D is "colorimetric-correct" 
> without much noise created by that extra contrast/sharpness.
I'm actually referring to single exposure HDR like you would have with
a negative (ie. greater dynamic range than you visual/display target) rather
than 15+stop multiple exposure HDR image. Hoever, I can't say I understand
what you mean in the statement above.

> #3 I like the way you blur the line between noise and grain. Can you 
> tell me why there is not difference.
There is a difference but the two are very related visually.
Electronic camera noise tends to affect the underexposed areas
whereas grain is present throughout the image. Grain also has
the added advantage of stochastically sampling the scene but the
size of the grain (relative to size of projection of course) presents
itself as noise. Unless you're semantically thinking of noise as 
something different
than I am...

For things like blue and green screen, the lack of noise makes
a huge difference (assuming you're not underexposing).
If you are, then you're pulling out the shadow noise which
tends to be more ordered than grain.

>
> #4 I agree that there is no such Digital camera that's probably one of 
> the reason why ILM developed HDR.
>
For highlights, with some cameras you can come very close to the highlight
handling and dynamic range of film. But you can only do so by shooting
raw and capturing as much of the sensor data as possible.

For clarification, ILM didn't invent HDR, they created a file format 
that became
a nice standard. Before OpenEXR, there was SGI logluv and Pixar Log.
Going back even further, the first time I used HDR was around 1988 with
RGBe inside Greg Ward's Radiance but I'm guessing that there were other
HDR formats before that.

>
>  #4 I think it's hard not to clip those strong color dominant for 
> those Digital sensors and If we  look at  the highlights of a plant in 
> bright day light for example, they are yellow and green, even a white 
> peace of paper is color cast. 
Generally the color casts are due to inadequate color balance curve that 
don't compensate
for the highlights properly. Unfortunately, you see it all the time with 
alot of cameras because
only so much can be done with in camera processing. Personally, that why 
shooting raw
is very appealing because it lets you use more complex algorithms to 
properly convert
the sensor data.

> Those digital sensors will overload in extreme Dynamic range. Film 
> doesn't  and show better contrast/sharpness/color-accuracy.
Again, it depends on the sensor. Not all sensors clip when they are 
overloaded. Some sensors
do have a shoulder that is inherent in the design of the sensor's 
architecture.
> Have you play with Professional Kodak/Fuji film lately? Just Beautiful!
They are pretty nice but I'm finding the newer stocks
are less appealing than the older stocks (personal taste). For stills, I 
shoot only
professional film and tend to prefer some of the Fuji stocks more
than the Kodak ones although my favorite stocks are actually underrated 
Delta 3200
or the now defunct Agfa Apx. I haven't found a digital still camera that 
I like yet.
However, I can say that I do prefer the advantages of shooting digitally 
(specifically
raw data mode) as long as the dynamic range is close to film. That said,
some projects are better suited to film and some are better suited to 
digital.
It's just another option that's nice to have (as long the options remain 
around).

Regarding film projection, I'm totally done with seeing crappy 1k prints 
with
dirt everywhere and lots of gate sway. There's no point in looking at 
nice grain
if it's all over the place and mushy. The state of film projection in 
local cineplex even in
major cities is horrendous.

Cheers,

Deanan
Dalsa