[Tig] Is there anybody out there

[bobineinc at yahoo.com]

David....It takes more time:)... and now, it's in good
Engrish. 
 
--- Deanan <delusion at delusion.com> wrote:


>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.

That "test" is an eye opener sort of speak!

> 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.

Unless we are astronomers in need to see  big objects
colliding  million miles away in HDR  to try to
predict a catastrofic gamma burst, we could be
throwing away colors! Correcting a picture that is
very flat and very muddy require very large and less
controllable moves that could show large step-overs in
certain colors. It could be a disadvantage to say the
least because if we're not super careful, we could
exceed the dynamic range of some encoding by making
corrections that are worse than we would make with
less range.
    
> 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...


Grain is what film is made of and noise is missing
data.  Film is sharper than digital capture. Have you
shot a resolution chart with both film and digital
capture? Well film has the advantage because each
grain can record whether there is a "line" or
"no-line"!
This proves that film is sharper and binary. It is, if
you will, exposed or not exposed and the size of film
grain is a lot smaller than a regular pixel(3 times
smaller). That's why the analogue noise from a digital
camera is less desirable than film grain especially in
the shadows. Every time people try to use smaller
pixels for cameras, they get more noise,.
As for skine-tone film is more forgiving because it
takes more grains than pixels to make a shade. 

> 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.

Isn't it that a digital camera captures colors in
forms of gray-steps and encodes those levels in forms
of color at the raw conversion? Does that mean more
colors clipping in a smaller working space and more
bits needed in wider working spaces? 

> 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. 

I suspect that Biedny, Monroy, and Moody from ILM at
the time also knew a thing or two about HDR. After
all, they were the power behind that program called
"Photoshop" which had basicly HDR capabable.

> 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.

I was only saying that we don't see white hightlights
in real life only colors.  Even white objects have
colors casts.  We don't see black shadows in real life
either, only dark shades.  That's why the overload
happens in saturated colors as well as whites.

> Personally, that why 
> shooting raw
> is very appealing because it lets you use more
> complex algorithms to 
> properly convert
> the sensor data.
> 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.

If we desaturate when we need to!

> It's just another option that's nice to have (as
> long the options remain 
> around)

I agree it's another tool. Digital capture is
intersting, so is poloroid film or real-D. 
http://www.bobinevideo.com/ Jais










Please check out our new website: http://www.bobinevideo.com/ 
   
  CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is © 
Copyright, Bobine Video Inc, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly for the 
sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and 
privileged information. Absent the express written authorization of the 
author, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or 
distribution is explicitly prohibited and taken at your own risk. If 
you are not, or are unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original 
message. 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com