the last word

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

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / The Last Word / ETTR — just crank up the ISO? Part 6

ETTR — just crank up the ISO? Part 6

February 15, 2013 By JimK Leave a Comment

I’ve been wrestling with some lack of repeatability in the measurements I’ve been reporting on in the last few posts. I haven’t completely solved the problem yet, but I thought I’d report on a series of measurements that I made yesterday.

I worried that, because it looked like some of the SNR results might be dependent on the order in which I made the test images, that I was seeing SNR effects due to sensor heating. To test that, used a D4 to make a series of exposures at a constant f-stop and a constant shutter speed (1/30 second) at ISO 100. I made a continuous string of ninety-odd images with the camera set for seven frames per second (that’s all I could get before the buffer filled up).  I first looked at the variations in exposure, as measured by the RawDigger counts in the same central area I’ve been using for the SNR work:

First, note how tight the exposures are. With a couple of exceptions, they’re all within plus or minus 2 hundredths of a stop of the mean exposure! The standard deviation is 0.017 f-stops. The trend line (a least-squares fit to the data) indicates that there is essentially no systematic change over time. It looks like there’s a periodic variation that could be vibration-related.

Looking at the SNR, corrected for the Poisson noise changes induced by the tiny exposure variations, we see this:

The standard deviation is 0.093 dB. There is a very slight decrease in SNR over the 12 or so seconds of the sequence.

I thought that there might be more heating with longer exposures, so I made a similar series with the shutter speed set to one second. Here’s the exposure variation:

From the beginning to the end, the least-squares trend line indicates the count-based exposure gets shorter by 0.01 f-stops. The standard deviation of the exposures is also 0.01.

The exposure-corrected SNR gets worse by about 0.01 dB (essentially nothing) over the sequence, and there’s 0.06 dB (standard deviation) worth of noise in the SNR:

It looks like there might be a heating effect, but it’s very small. This sequence of measurements indicates to me is that that the D4 and the 70-200 mm lens that I used are capable of amazing precision in exposure. Think of everything that has to be substantially identical to get the narrow spreads we see in these graphs: the aperture has to stop down to the same place every time, the shutter timing can’t change, and the chip sensitivity can’t vary much (that last is probably the easiest).

← ETTR — just crank up the ISO? Part 5 ETTR — just crank up the ISO? Part 7 →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

April 2021
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  
« Mar    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • 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 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 Relative sensitivity of Sony a7RIV and GFX 100S
  • Ilya Zakharevich on Pixel shift with the Fujifilm GFX 100S
  • Ilya Zakharevich on Relative sensitivity of Sony a7RIV and GFX 100S
  • JimK on GFX 100S sensor is a 4-shot stitch
  • John Leathwick on GFX 100S sensor is a 4-shot stitch
  • Christer Almqvist on GFX 100S sensor is a 4-shot stitch
  • JimK on Three dimensionality and sensor format
  • Tom Hegeman on Three dimensionality and sensor format
  • Bjoern on Three dimensionality and sensor format
  • JimK on Shutter shock in the GFX 100s

Archives

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.