arthury Posted June 2, 2007 Share #1 Posted June 2, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am rather happy with the dynamic range of the sensor. It handled this wide range pretty well ... Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! M8; Zeiss 21mm ZM Biogon; UV/IR Cut Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! M8; Zeiss 21mm ZM Biogon; UV/IR Cut ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/25667-m8-dynamic-range/?do=findComment&comment=270667'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Hi arthury, Take a look here M8: Dynamic Range. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jackal Posted June 2, 2007 Share #2 Posted June 2, 2007 what sort of compression is that ? almost looks like a screenshot of a streaming low bandwidth real player movie 400% enlarged Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted June 2, 2007 Share #3 Posted June 2, 2007 Richard, that is a JPEG. What do you expect? Arthur was pleased, and that is right and proper. The real test of the dynamic range of the M8, on the other hand, is indoor shots in available light and with light coming in through the windows. There it can be easily seen that the range is not much larger than that of slide film. I have never felt that auto exposure is the way to use slide film, least of all with such a simplistic system as that of the M7/M8. Instead, I prefer to exploit the restricted measuring angle in order to measure large highlight areas and then giving them an increased exposure of about 2 f-stops. An alternative is bracketing, which is of course practical only on manual. Arthur, enjoy your M8 and don't listen to carping. The old man from the Age of Guesstimating. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackal Posted June 2, 2007 Share #4 Posted June 2, 2007 didnt mean to be rude i just find it astounding that people post pictures up that are supposed to demonstrate something or other (usually to do with quality), yet use the most abhorrent levels of compression just look at the crosshatch pattrens against teh pathway and all the corruption on the leaves against the sky... so so ugly, i can't bear to look at it and jpeg DOES not necessarily = looks utter rubbish just up the compression quality Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted June 2, 2007 Share #5 Posted June 2, 2007 This image has been posted at the upper end of the limits set by the server here. It's not possible to post a higher quality jpg here, unless it is linked to another site. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackal Posted June 2, 2007 Share #6 Posted June 2, 2007 better not to post at all then ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reven Posted June 2, 2007 Share #7 Posted June 2, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I really don't see your problem. The images perhaps has not to much details, but I still think it shows the DR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted June 2, 2007 Share #8 Posted June 2, 2007 Arthur - There is plenty of information in the lower tones to pull out in PP. so I agree with your assertion about DR in this example. Maybe Richard wants a mastered final image, delivered to his computer free of j-peg artifacts. The rest of us can use a digital meter and a little imagination. ..................Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry Posted June 2, 2007 Share #9 Posted June 2, 2007 Richard, The shot looks perfectly acceptable on my Mac (of course, not as good as a print). Maybe your monitor needs calibrating? Larry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted June 2, 2007 Author Share #10 Posted June 2, 2007 didnt mean to be rude i just find it astounding that people post pictures up that are supposed to demonstrate something or other (usually to do with quality), yet use the most abhorrent levels of compression just look at the crosshatch pattrens against teh pathway and all the corruption on the leaves against the sky... so so ugly, i can't bear to look at it and jpeg DOES not necessarily = looks utter rubbish just up the compression quality Richard, Try this link for a 950pix wide image with 15% compression (700KB): http://gallery.photo.net/photo/6041218-lg.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted June 2, 2007 Share #11 Posted June 2, 2007 {Snipped}The real test of the dynamic range of the M8, on the other hand, is indoor shots in available light and with light coming in through the windows. There it can be easily seen that the range is not much larger than that of slide film. {snipped}. I think what Arthur is really noticing here is the incredible shadow detail the M8 has. The "DR" you see in a single JPEG though is a bit of a dodge, and mis-represents what the M8 is capable of doing. The M8 has much more *exposure latitude* than slide film due, again, to it's amazing shadow response, and consequently much more DR if you want to work that. . To show you what I mean, here are 4 different RAW conversions of the same file, right out of C1...from -2 stops in exposure compensation to over 3+ (maximum exposure compensation plus a huge curve ) What I see, anyway, is an outstandingly detailed, noiseless shadow response that lets me push and pull the shot in ways slide shooters only dreamed about. If you exposed slide film for the highlights (which, of course, I did ) then often shadows would be hopelessly blocked. Not the case on the M8 in lower ISOs. I was blown away when I saw these in January, and I already knew the M8 was very good in this respect. Here they are... see what you think. This shows the true DR of the camera, which is, suffice to say, "a lot" in terms of digital cameras. To my eyes, on the DMR is its equal in a 35mm form factor, and since the M8 has at least 2 stops better noise on the shadow side, well, practically the M8 stomps the DMR when you need higher ISOs... BTW--shooting JPEG, you won't ever get to do this quite in the same way... So here is Lars's test! Window light only and M8... M8, ISO 160 (old firmware), minus 2 stops in C1, 35 ASPH Lux, no filters: Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Equal exposure (0 EC): Plus 2.5 stops in C1: Plus 2.5 stops plus a shadow increase curve in C1 (so 3 stops plus): Try pushing Kodachrome and see what it looks like Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Equal exposure (0 EC): Plus 2.5 stops in C1: Plus 2.5 stops plus a shadow increase curve in C1 (so 3 stops plus): Try pushing Kodachrome and see what it looks like ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/25667-m8-dynamic-range/?do=findComment&comment=271000'>More sharing options...
Artichoke Posted June 2, 2007 Share #12 Posted June 2, 2007 before the M8, I used the Fujifilm S3 shooting mainly jpgs as its RAW files are 25 MB the M8's DR holds up reasonably well to this DR champion and never ceases to amaze me at how well shadows can be recovered, without much noise and with excellent color preservation dual RAW conversion techniques are sometimes needed with skies or windows in interiror shots, but this is to be expected and not all that difficult to pull off given the excellent shadow recovery with the M8, I have taken to shooting with a negative compensation dialed in more often than I did with the S3 and have been pleased with the results Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted June 2, 2007 Share #13 Posted June 2, 2007 given the excellent shadow recovery with the M8, I have taken to shooting with a negative compensation dialed in more often than I did with the S3 and have been pleased with the results Exactly my experience Arthur, (including comparison to the S3). The shadow recovery is of such high quality, that I always have at least a -1/3 compensation in AE or manually set, sometimes -2/3, and the resulting DR is a major feature of the IQ of this camera. best...Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bingaloid Posted June 2, 2007 Share #14 Posted June 2, 2007 Thanks for sharing these images, they show some really important characteristics of the sensor/lens combo - and how far imaging software has progressed since MacPaint! I've read in other posts on this forum that people are generally going with something like a -1 EV as a starting point, after many many exposures has anyone gotten any closer to a good "rule of thumb" understanding of the sensor to say if -1 is right enough? My understanding is that there can be as much as a 1 stop variance in the total profile between sensor, lens and meter, and I think it's correct that my body and lens might not match anyone else's so I have to get to know my own system, but I'm new to professional digital and am having a little bit of a difficult time understanding how to apply traditional film knowledge (which is all I have - both as a photographer and a specialized b/w and color printer) to a RAW file. For instance, I've always worked under the theory that if I can make a "good" negative and capture the full range of information in the scene then I can make a print look like anything that I want and in order to do that I applied a general rule of thumb of overexposing and underdeveloping by somewhere between 1/2 and a full stop (FP4/Rodinal/Kodak Elite paper) and for color negs I've gotten used to a much tighter reign (I generally can bracket, but not always - and I've been using rangefinder cameras for a long time, so I've never trusted the meter as something totally reliable, more like a good friend who likes to kid around sometimes). Thoughts? Advice? I know I just need to shoot a lot to get to know my own impressions, but I'm sometimes suspicious that approaching this camera as if it were holding film is not the right thing to do. I also sometimes think that my 30 years of photo studies is both a good thing and a bad thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted June 2, 2007 Share #15 Posted June 2, 2007 Arthur, this is an impressive shot. Thanks for posting the higher resolution pic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.