• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / D810 vs D800E dark-field histograms

D810 vs D800E dark-field histograms

August 7, 2014 JimK 5 Comments

People have asked for comparisons between the dynamic range of the D810 and its immediate predecessors. I don’t have a D800 at my disposal, but I do have access to a D800E, and I thought I’d do some testing.

But first, a little discussion of dynamic range.  The dynamic range of an imaging system is the ratio between the brightest pixels the camera can register and the dimmest pixels that have some defined level of quality. For the definition of acceptable quality in the dimmest pixels, I like to use a signal to noise ratio (SNR) of 10. However, that’s not standard throughout the industry. In fact, the closest thing to a standard seems to be something called engineering dynamic range (EDR), which defines the dimmest pixels to be considered as having an SNR of either 0 or 1. Zero is a convenient number, since picking that means that the EDR is simply the ratio of full scale over the dark-field noise.

Since full scale is the same — 2^14-1 or 16383 — for the two cameras, comparing their EDRs simply means comparing their dark field noise. That should be pretty easy, right?

Wrong.

The D810 and the D800E — and, presumably, the D800 — play by different rules. Let me show you.

Here’s a dark field histogram (as for all the histograms in this post, made with single shot mode at 1/8000 second) from the D810 at ISO 100, which is the lowest real ISO setting the two cameras share:

 

D810 ISO 100
D810 ISO 100

Note the nice tight distribution around 601. That’s about the black level for the camera, and will be subtracted out by the raw processing software that you use on your computer.

Here’s a dark field histogram from the D800E at the same ISO, also with the bucket size set to 1:

D800E ISO 100

D800E ISO 100

Now just about all the pixels are at zero.

What’s going on? The D810 makes the — more sensible, in my opinion — assumption that deciding what the black level is should be the responsibility of the raw converter program, while the D800E does it in camera, and subtracts that value from all the pixels before writing the raw file.

That means that it’s not simple to figure out what the D800E dark-field noise was before the camera threw away all that data (to be fair, it’s data to somebody like me researching the dark-field noise, but the camera figures it’s noise). There are ways to calculate what the dark-field noise probably was, but they involve, for every ISO setting of interest, making a series of ever-darker exposures and fitting a curve to the raw values.

Now let’s look at the highest setting the two cameras share, ISO 25K.

First, the D810:

D810 ISO 25K
D810 ISO 25K

Missing a few values, aren’t we? You ain’t seen nothin’ yet. The D800E at the same setting:

D800E ISO 25K
D800E ISO 25K

Whoa! Only one in every 16 buckets has any content, and that is really sparse. At ISO 25K, the D800E is a 10 bit camera, and one that does some serious black clipping.

Now that we’ve seen the extremes, we’ll march through the whole one-stop ISO series that the two cameras have in common. You saw ISO 100, so we’ll start with ISO 200:

D810 ISO 200
D810 ISO 200
D800E ISO 200
D800E ISO 200

Quite a difference. A well-behaved Gaussian distribution in the D810’s case, and a truncated shadow of that in the D800E. It’s not just clipping at the middle of the distribution, it’s clipped well to the right of where the mean must be.

ISO 400:

 

D810 ISO 400
D810 ISO 400

 

D800E ISO 400
D800E ISO 400

The D810 histogram looks like it came from a textbook. The same severe clipping shows in the D800E histogram.

ISO 800:

D810 ISO 800
D810 ISO 800
D800E ISO 800
D800E ISO 800

More of same. The gaps in both the cameras’ red and blue channels are because of Nikon’s digital white balance prescaling.

ISO 1600:

 

D810 ISO 1600
D810 ISO 1600

 

D800E ISO 1600
D800E ISO 1600

Interesting. We’re seeing gaps even in the D810’s green channel. There are gaps developing in the D800E green channel, too.

ISO 3200:

D810 ISO 3200
D810 ISO 3200
D800E ISO 3200
D800E ISO 3200

Both cameras are now 13 bitters. The unreasonable black-biased distribution continues in the D800E.

ISO 6400:

D810 ISO 6400
D810 ISO 6400
D800E ISO 6400
D800E ISO 6400

The D800E is a 12 bit camera at ISO 6400. I’d call the D810 12 and a half, since we’re not seeing the level of combing that you’d expect with straight 12 bit precision. This is probably the result of digital gain that’s not a power of two. We are finally seeing some clipping in the D810 histogram. I see no good reason for this. There’s a lot of room to the left of the clipping point.

ISO 12K:

D810 ISO 12K
D810 ISO 12K
D800E ISO 12K
D800E ISO 12K

There’s some funny combing in the D810 histogram, but nothing like what’s going on with the D800E. The older camera is now digitizing at the 11 bit level.

The different approaches to raw processing will make for some difficulties in graphical read noise comparisons. More next time.

 

The Last Word

← Mastering Leica M240 green shadows D810 vs D800E dark-field noise curves →

Comments

  1. Jack Hogan says

    August 7, 2014 at 12:57 pm

    Well done, Jim. I wonder what the significance of not having a gaussian zero is in practice.

    After all, photons don’t have a gaussian distribution around zero, as Poisson goes.

    Jack

    Reply
    • Jim says

      August 7, 2014 at 2:46 pm

      Right you are, Jack. I’m concerned that what the D800/D800E does limits the ability of present and future raw processors to get the most out of the dark parts of images.

      I am developing a philosophy. Raw should be raw. Lossless compression is OK, but no lossy compression a la Sony, or black point setting as in the D800 and the M240. No nonliearities near zero to make the noise less apparent, like the M240 does. I’d even argue against hot pixel suppression in raw files; the camera should provide the raw processor with a map and let the raw processor do it.

      In the raw processor, there’s a lot more computing power available than there is in the camera. Plus, if we don’t take dat out of the raw files, over the years we’ll be able to take advantage of improved algorithms.

      Let’s start a movement! We need a slogan.

      Jim

      Reply
  2. Shawn says

    August 15, 2014 at 1:53 pm

    I’m a long time astro-photographer imaging mostly with modified Canon bodies to allow imaging of hydrogen alpha and beta emission nebulas. Obtaining ‘truly raw’ data is essential for astro image processing especially for dark field subtraction which somewhat removes noise in the image. Sensor noise is also highly dependent on the temperature of the sensor. A few years ago, Nikon was known to produce raw images that in some cases actually remove stars from the images.

    I’m thinking the results of this test actually may explain some of that observed behavior in astro images as well as recent posts that suggest the image noise in the D810 is much greater than the D800/800E.

    http://photographylife.com/nikon-d810-thermal-noise-issue

    Checkout the CD jewel cases:

    http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/07/29/nikon-d810-vs-d800e-to-upgrade-or-not/

    Thoughts?

    BTW – I much prefer obtaining as much raw data from the sensor as possible and would prefer Nikon not to solve the ‘higher noise’ in the D810 by using the D800/800E raw processing algorithm.

    Shawn Quinn

    PS – Excellent work Jim.

    Reply
    • Jim says

      August 16, 2014 at 11:17 am

      I’m thinking the results of this test actually may explain some of that observed behavior in astro images as well as recent posts that suggest the image noise in the D810 is much greater than the D800/800E.

      http://photographylife.com/nikon-d810-thermal-noise-issue

      My tests do not indicate that the D810 has higher read noise than the D800E, once you adjust for the fact that the D800E chops off the center and left side of the histogram at low levels.

      http://blog.kasson.com/?p=6552

      http://blog.kasson.com/?p=6544

      http://blog.kasson.com/?p=6827

      Neither does the D810 have higher photon noise than the D800E:

      http://blog.kasson.com/?p=6565

      There is that shutter speed dependent processing, though. I don’t like it any more than you do.

      Jim

      Reply
  3. Derek says

    January 4, 2015 at 3:33 am

    Ah, Nikon up to their tricks again. (and people wonder how they get better performance than sony who make the sensors, the answer is their RAW files are probably processed, so not RAW, in short they’re lying)

    Please read this on the D3

    http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/nikon_test/test.htm

    I do astro photography and went with canon.. I also use IRIS written by the author of the above link.

    The plots above that worry me are the ones above 1600.. looks like a bunch of pixels are getting adjusted to the overpopulated bin on the left, which means the RAW isn’t RAW.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.