I have to make similar concessions when buying a digital camera.
I know that and that's why I said I do realize that it's less expensive if I accept the features I don't want on the camera. I accept an LCD on my camera, accept that it does video. accept that it does liveview, to save money
My cameras don't have built in flash or scenes modes but if I accept that I can save even more money.
Used Koraks advice on ETTR with pleasing results…
Be aware the ETTR is a methodology for digital exposure of RAW which captures the most digital information in the shadow areas of the scene, while protecting the highlight areas so they are not lost by falling off the histogram. Yet, doing so can record the scene so it is brighter than reality, and if you want to reproduce reality (such as midtone areas show up in your print as midtone, not lighter grey) you need to then compensate the recording and reduce the brightness during postprocessing accordingly.
It’s much harder using the ETTR method without a screen…
I wondered how you managed to employ the technique mentioned by Koraks referenced by you in post 225, shooting with a camera that has neither RAW-to-JPG in order to even compute the histogram from the image, nor a display to view the histogram.
I’m (guessing) pun intended, from shooting film most of my life has a lot to do with it…!
Don’t want to be negative but transparent.If you shot color transparency, you got good background training!
Used Koraks advice on ETTR with pleasing results…
Your advice was good enough for you…
Well, it has served me well in similar situations, so yeah!
Koraks makes you a better photographer
Not sure about that, but I'm of course happy if someone finds any use in anything I say.
IDK and frankly I'm not bothered by it either way.It’s rare isn’t it…
Be aware the ETTR is a methodology for digital exposure of RAW which captures the most digital information in the shadow areas of the scene, while protecting the highlight areas so they are not lost by falling off the histogram. Yet, doing so can record the scene so it is brighter than reality, and if you want to reproduce reality (such as midtone areas show up in your print as midtone, not lighter grey) you need to then compensate the recording and reduce the brightness during postprocessing accordingly.
Is ETTR really necessary today with the large DR ranges in today's modern cameras with the latest editing programs? Is all that work required to squeeze a little more out of the shadow areas?
If there are 14 bits to store the RAW data from each sensel today, it is the same bit width now as it was 10-20 years ago...only if more bit width adds bits does the real dynamic range of the digital data carry any more data in a single picture.
Test results have concentrated on the ability to underexpose and recover information in spite of circuit nose...that ability has gotten better...and that has been called 'better dynamic range' But not the inherent data capacity of a shot, which is the rationale behind ETTR. 14-bit width can capture tonal information with 16,384 levels of precision.; 15 bits doubles that number, and provides twice as many levels for a given low light area of the scene, which is what one is trying to accomplish with ETTR...give more bits to the darker areas.
If there are 14 bits to store the RAW data from each sensel today, it is the same bit width now as it was 10-20 years ago...only if more bit width adds bits does the real dynamic range of the digital data carry any more data in a single picture.
Test results have concentrated on the ability to underexpose and recover information in spite of circuit nose...that ability has gotten better...and that has been called 'better dynamic range' But not the inherent data capacity of a shot, which is the rationale behind ETTR. 14-bit width can capture tonal information with 16,384 levels of precision.; 15 bits doubles that number, and provides twice as many levels for a given low light area of the scene, which is what one is trying to accomplish with ETTR...give more bits to the darker areas.
How does the same product have fewer bits of DR (14 vs 16) yet achieve 1 stop wider dynamic range (15)
There's no inherent relationship between dynamic range and bit 'depth'. Simply put, you can make a bit as wide or as narrow in terms of dynamic range as you want - it's arbitrary.
Also, the fact that a device outputs a nominal 16 bit signal doesn't mean its actual resolution is the same. It's generally lower, sometimes much less so.
16 bits per color channel in the Leica! We need to understand how the bits are employed differently, to understand what that actually translates to...does 14 v 16bit matter?, if there is a relevant difference in dynamic range between the two. For example, using Leica information...
For the Leica S,
How does the same product have fewer bits of DR (14 vs 16) yet achieve 1 stop wider dynamic range (15), in the same Leica S typ 007 with difference of 2 bits of width?! One needs insider understanding how the 16-bit standard digital word is actually allocated.
- Leica documentation (August 2015) states: Dynamic range: 13 stops, Colour depth: 16 bits per pixel https://www.bhphotovideo.com/lit_files/103859.pdf?BI=734&KBID=1035
- Yet other Leica documenstation (Spet 2014) also states: Dynamic Range Up to 15 f-stops. Color Resolution 14 Bit per pixel. https://leica-camera.com/sites/default/files/pm-91418-Datenblatt_S-Typ-007_e_AP.PDF
Looks like you have work to do for the correct answers to those questions…
I could find no Leica-provided information on the topic. Lots of speculative discussion by Joe Average and his cousins.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?