• 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 / Dynamic Range Comparisons with simulated cameras

Dynamic Range Comparisons with simulated cameras

December 28, 2014 JimK 5 Comments

In yesterday’s post, I speculated that the Claff Photographic Dynamic Range Curves created by by direct search might be smoother if the searched data set was from a simulated camera rather than a real one.

I programmed up a Nikon D4 simulator that used the modeled read noise values from the data set. I picked the D4 because it subtracts out the black point in-camera, with the potential to chop off some of the signal at low mean values, and I wanted to see if that was a problem for computing Claff PDR. I told the simulator to not truncate the histogram.

I ran the simulator to produce a spreadsheet of means and standard deviations, then analysed that with my PDR program. The results looked just about as lumpy as the real camera results, Then I changed the exposure increment from 1/3 stop to 1/10 stop, and things smoothed out:

simVsRealD4

The data point at ISO 250 is more believable in the simulated result, but it makes the point at ISO 160 look suspiciously low. The systematic discrepancies at high ISOs are because I just simulated one raw channel, whereas the data points for the real camera are an average of all four raw channels. I just used one FWC for all the ISOs.

If I take the average read noise at each ISO as my target we get a little closer:

simVsRealD4avg

The discrepancies at ISO 160 and 250 remain.

My conclusions are:

Most of the lumpiness in the real camera curves is caused by the coarse exposure sampling, which makes the average difference between the searched-for SNR and the found SNR larger.

It is impractical to make more exposures, but it’s desirable to sample the mean values more densely. Therefore, I will experiment with using a gradient for a target, so that I can sample several different mean values in a single exposure.

In the case of the D4, the histogram truncation performed by the camera did not affect the Claff PDR results. In the case of other cameras, it might. I should probably run simulations to check whenever I test a camera that does histogram truncation. By the way, none of the three Sonys tested yesterday do that.

The Last Word

← Photographic Dynamic Range comparisons Shutter shock revisited →

Comments

  1. Chris Livsey says

    December 29, 2014 at 10:40 am

    Jim,
    What advantage/difference does the histogram truncation give the D4 in a real world image? Would the same scene (real or simulated) at the same iso (given that is a variable between cameras) be visibly different between a D4 and an A7S ?

    Reply
    • Jim says

      December 29, 2014 at 1:22 pm

      Thanks for the questions, Chris.

      >What advantage/difference does the histogram truncation give the D4 in a real world image?

      None, as far as I’m concerned. I think that function should be performed in post, where the photographer has some control over it.

      >Would the same scene (real or simulated) at the same iso (given that is a variable between cameras) be visibly different between a D4 and an A7S ?

      I’m assuming you’re talking about high ISO settings. The a7S has better high-ISO performance than the D4, starting st ISO 2000. The shadows in the a8S image will be less noisy than in the D4 image at the same ISO. That assumes the black point is the same for the two images. Said another way, it assumes that the photographer sets the 17S black point in the raw developer the same place the D4 firmware sets in in the camera.

      Jim

      Reply
  2. Jean Pierre says

    December 30, 2014 at 1:39 am

    Hi Jim,
    Very good work. Do you have the a7r?
    I do think the a7r has the same sensor as D810?!
    It would be great to see the difference between a7r to D810!
    Best and happy new year
    Jean Pierre

    Reply
    • Jim says

      December 30, 2014 at 8:48 am

      Jean Pierre,

      I do have an a7R. It has a different sensor than the D810. I’m sure of that because the D810 has EFCS, and the a7R does not. If the a7R had EFCS, all the shutter shock issues would disappear. I will consider running a series of photon transfer tests on the a7R, but, as I suspect it is soon to be replaced in the alpha 7 line up, I’m not sure it will be of interest to lots of people.

      Jim

      Reply
      • Jean Pierre says

        December 30, 2014 at 10:31 am

        OK, Jim
        Let’s wait for the up-line of the a7r. It will come 2015, shure.

        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.