Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > Digital Camera Discussion > Imaging Technology: Theory, Alternatives, Practice and Advances.

Imaging Technology: Theory, Alternatives, Practice and Advances. This is a brand independent discussion of theory, process or device. Ignore this forum unless this matters to you!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 10th, 2006, 08:45 AM
Doug Kerr
Guest (Moderated, Given real name in post)
 
Posts: n/a
Default The ISO definition of dynamic range - new tutorial article

This "room" is not ideally chartered to receive this matter, but it seems to have as relevant a portfolio as is currently available
************
We often encounter discussions of the dynamic range of a digital camera and how it may be influenced by various design parameters. Often these discussions are hindered by failure to articulate a specific definition of "dynamic range".

The ISO standard for such matters revolves around essentially this definition:

The dynamic range of a digital camera is defined as the ratio between (in a single "shot") the largest uniquely-representable luminance (the "saturation" luminance) and the luminance for which the signal to noise ratio (SNR) of the image is 1.0 (or actually, the luminance at which the SNR would be 1.0, based on a noise level determined at a fixed small luminance, a finesse made necessary by the fact that an actual SNR of 1.0 is "problematical").

I have recently posted to my technical information site, The Pumpkin, a new tutorial article, "The ISO Definition of the Dynamic Range of a Digital Still Camera", available here:

http://doug.kerr.home.att.net/pumpkin/index.htm#ISO-DR

It describes in detail the ISO definition and the tricky way it is defined.

Note that this standard revolves around examination of a digital "image", and this cannot be directly applied to the matter of the dynamic range of a camera from the perspective of its raw output, a matter that introduces a number of thorny issues.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old September 28th, 2007, 12:02 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,782
Default

Doug,

Thisc topic is so important. We've already been suckered for the last 10 years with marketing bluster and nonsense about the increased dynamic range of scanners. The put in a 16 BIT A to D convertor, label the $70 to $800 scanner as 48 BIT and come up with claimed O.D. of 4.1!

This is obviously either ignorant delusiion or else willful scamming of the less astute artist or photographer.

So, Doug, the claims of Canon and Nikon are wonderful, but are they really valid in practice?

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old September 29th, 2007, 03:48 AM
Ralph Eisenberg Ralph Eisenberg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Paris
Posts: 160
Default

Thanks very much for providing what looks to be a most interesting article on a clearly important subject. At least now I have the choice of dying somewhat less ignorantly.
__________________
Ralph
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old January 22nd, 2008, 09:27 AM
Alan T. Price Alan T. Price is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 101
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Kerr View Post
Note that this standard revolves around examination of a digital "image", and this cannot be directly applied to the matter of the dynamic range of a camera from the perspective of its raw output, a matter that introduces a number of thorny issues.
Maybe in this regard the DR definition is no worse than the definition of depth of field which relies on how an image is printed and viewed as well as on the optical performance of the lens and camera.

- Alan
__________________
Alan (Perth, Western Australia)

Canon 1Ds2, 1D2, 1V.
Far too many lenses.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old January 22nd, 2008, 10:12 AM
Doug Kerr Doug Kerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
Posts: 8,565
Default

Hi, Alan,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan T. Price View Post
Maybe in this regard the DR definition is no worse than the definition of depth of field which relies on how an image is printed and viewed as well as on the optical performance of the lens and camera.
Indeed.

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old January 22nd, 2008, 05:17 PM
John Sheehy John Sheehy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 394
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Doug,

Thisc topic is so important. We've already been suckered for the last 10 years with marketing bluster and nonsense about the increased dynamic range of scanners. The put in a 16 BIT A to D convertor, label the $70 to $800 scanner as 48 BIT and come up with claimed O.D. of 4.1!

This is obviously either ignorant delusiion or else willful scamming of the less astute artist or photographer.

So, Doug, the claims of Canon and Nikon are wonderful, but are they really valid in practice?
The DR of individual pixels hasn't improved much in the last few years, except perhaps within the models of certain brands.

Except for the Pentax K10D, which, according to someone who I tend to trust, breaks this barrier (at 4550:1), the maximum signal to read noise level in a pixel hasn't surpassed about 3000:1 for Canon or Nikon (and Canon has been there since at least the 1Dmk2, and I believe the Fuji DSLRs have been there for a few years, too). The definition Doug gives is the ratio of maximum signal to the signal at which a 1:1 ratio occurs, and that level is a little bit above the read noise "floor", because of the contribution of shot noise. The more photons collectable and unclipped, while maintaining this read noise floor at 0.033% of saturation, the closer the 1:1 SNR-limited DR gets to actually being 3000:1. This is just about the pixel, though, or a fixed numbers of pixels as an image. The dynamic range of an image, however, has to be related to the number of pixels, as well as to their individual characteristics. A 1MP camera with a DR of 3000:1 at the pixel level is not going to have more DR than one that has a pixel DR of 1500:1 and 22 MP. That's preposterous, yet that is a commonly held belief. Perhaps the misleading metaphor of "noise floor" is partly to blame; the misconception is that there is nothing below it, and it doesn't matter how many pixels you have, there is nothing visible under the floor. The idea that nothing is visible under the floor, though, is wrong. The noise floor is just a semantic boundary, above which, signal is greater, and below which, noise is greater. Below the threshold of visual resolution, the noise floor "drops" for practical image-level purposes, as averages of local pixels are experienced, instead of single ones.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old January 22nd, 2008, 10:49 PM
Doug Kerr Doug Kerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
Posts: 8,565
Default

Hi, John,

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Sheehy View Post
The definition Doug gives is the ratio of maximum signal to the signal at which a 1:1 ratio occurs . .
Not quit. The conceptual basis of the ISO definition is what you state, but there are difficulties in measuring SNR's as "poor" as 1:1 (the net value would be negative a substantial percentage of the time, and if since we are working in luminance-equivalent terms, that is impossible, so the measured noise level understates the random phenomenon.).

This dilemma is finessed by the actual ISO definition, which is the ratio of the saturation luminance to the luminance-equivalent noise (RMS) at a luminance of 1/100 saturation. (That numerical value is used as a "proxy" for the signal level that would have an SNR of 1:1 if that were possible!)

I don;lt mean to suggest that this invalidates what you said - just tying to be sure I am quoted accurately.

Le crayon rouge ne dort jamais.

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old May 13th, 2008, 03:17 AM
LisaAdam LisaAdam is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1
Default

High dynamic range (HDR) images enable photographers to record a greater range of tonal detail than a given camera could capture in a single photo. This opens up a whole new set of lighting possibilities which one might have previously avoided—for purely technical reasons. The new "merge to HDR" feature of Photoshop CS2 allows the photographer to combine a series of bracketed exposures into a single image which encompasses the tonal detail of the entire series. There is no free lunch however; trying to broaden the tonal range will inevitably come at the expense of decreased contrast in some tones. Learning to use the merge to HDR feature in Photoshop CS2 can help you make the most of your dynamic range under tricky lighting—while still balancing this trade-off with contrast.

Last edited by Cem_Usakligil; May 14th, 2008 at 01:44 AM. Reason: Signature disabled pending info request
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:07 AM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet © of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion © 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!