D300 shoots like D3 !!!

"Sosumi" <sosumi.DeleteThis@home.nl> wrote:
>"gpaleo" <pgaleo.DeleteThis@ath.forthnet.gr> wrote:
>> Astrophotographers do it as a matter of course, for years now.
>That's a good trick, since the D300 has only been out for a couple of months
>now.

Not a difficult trick at all, since the technique has
been available in other cameras, or by post processing,
for years before the D300 was even a gleam in the eye of
Nikon.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: D300 shoots like D3 !!! 

"Sosumi" <sosumi.RemoveThis@home.nl> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com> wrote:
>> It *is* averaging, and it is *not* bracketing.
>>
>> "Autogain" means that it averages the entire set.

Trust that there is *no* bracketing. Each and every
image is taken with exactly the same exposure. Otherwise
it wouldn't work as well. You'd average in blown highlights
and lost shadows... making the result worse than the one shot
that was properly exposed.

>If it's averaging, then when I make 5 shots with multiple exposure with the
>*same* exposure, I should get the same result, right? But I don't. The
>bracketed shots have more detail, less noise and more range.

Why do think you should get the same result?

Whatever, your observation is not correct. What you get
is just less noise. The extra detail and the extra
range are just side effects of less noise.

The reason it works is because light from the scene for
any give pixel will be the same each and every time. So
the average of a number of images is exactly the same as
any one of the images. But noise is randomly
distributed, and will have a slightly different
distribution with each image. Any pixel that has a high
noise component in one image will not have a high noise
component in all images. Hence noise will average
*lower* in the combined image than the peak noise will
be in any of the individual images.

If there is less noise, then more detail is visible.
That by definition is more dynamic range.

>>>But still, it's also a good idea. Never heard of it before.
>>
>> Your comparison to the D3 is nonsense, because the D3
>> can do exactly the same thing. Except of course the D3
>> has an FX sensor and higher ISO with less noise... so
>> the results are even better than with the D300.
>
>Gee whiz! Lighten up! Do I have to put a smiley for every time I'm kidding?

Obviously you were *not* kidding, as the multiple
responses indicate.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: D300 shoots like D3 !!! 

John Navas <spamfilter1.DeleteThis@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:15:50 -0900, floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
>wrote in <87fxw6zxyx.fld.DeleteThis@apaflo.com>:
>
>>Trust that there is *no* bracketing. Each and every
>>image is taken with exactly the same exposure. Otherwise
>>it wouldn't work as well. You'd average in blown highlights
>>and lost shadows... making the result worse than the one shot
>>that was properly exposed.
>
>Are you sure the camera doesn't do that? Properly done bracketing and
>combining should yield a HDR image.

It won't if the "combining" is either averaging pixel
values with "autogain" circuit or just an additive
process, which are the two options available with Nikon
cameras.

>>The reason it works is because light from the scene for
>>any give pixel will be the same each and every time. So
>>the average of a number of images is exactly the same as
>>any one of the images. But noise is randomly
>>distributed, and will have a slightly different
>>distribution with each image. Any pixel that has a high
>>noise component in one image will not have a high noise
>>component in all images. Hence noise will average
>>*lower* in the combined image than the peak noise will
>>be in any of the individual images.
>
>Actually that the amount of noise in a given pixel of a given image is
>random, and thus will tend to decrease when values are averaged. See
><http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/noise-reduction.htm>

Not quite. The randomness that counts for averaging is
how random different images are for the noise at a given
pixel. The fact that different pixels within each image
have a random noise distribution is not particularly
significant (other than the two characteristics result
from the same cause).

>>If there is less noise, then more detail is visible.
>>That by definition is more dynamic range.
>
>Yes, but not the same as HDR.

Exactly. That's why his statement that he saw more
range was not really true. All he saw was less noise.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: D300 shoots like D3 !!! 

On Feb 5, 3:48 pm, "Sosumi" <sos... DeleteThis @home.nl> wrote:
> If you do studio work or low light, not moving objects and you want the
> highest possible resolution, dynamic and tonal range, check this out:
>
> http://www.nikon-box.com/MultiX/
>
> Much better than any normal way of shooting with the D300 !
>
> If you're happy with the results and save 3000,- dollars because you realize
> that now all you need is the D300 instead of the D3, feel free to donate me
> some of all that saved money. ) Maybe I can finally buy that lens...
>
> --
> Sosumi

How about something really over the top? Olympus E-510, 50 frames
stacked, 1600 ISO, HQ JPEG mode. Done with "Registax"
http://www.astronomie.be/registax/


1 frame:
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/92591393/original

50 frames:
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/92591393/original
 >> Stay informed about: D300 shoots like D3 !!! 

On Feb 5, 8:57 pm, RichA <rander3....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 3:48 pm, "Sosumi" <sos....TakeThisOut@home.nl> wrote:
>
> > If you do studio work or low light, not moving objects and you want the
> > highest possible resolution, dynamic and tonal range, check this out:
>
> >http://www.nikon-box.com/MultiX/
>
> > Much better than any normal way of shooting with the D300 !
>
> > If you're happy with the results and save 3000,- dollars because you realize
> > that now all you need is the D300 instead of the D3, feel free to donate me
> > some of all that saved money. ) Maybe I can finally buy that lens...
>
> > --
> > Sosumi
>
> How about something really over the top? Olympus E-510, 50 frames
> stacked, 1600 ISO, HQ JPEG mode. Done with "Registax"http://www.astronomie.be/registax/
>
> 1 frame:http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/92591393/original
>
> 50 frames:http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/92591393/original

OOPS! Here's the 50 frame one!!

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/92591428/original
 >> Stay informed about: D300 shoots like D3 !!! 

On Feb 6, 5:04 am, RichA <rander3....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 8:57 pm, RichA <rander3....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 3:48 pm, "Sosumi" <sos....RemoveThis@home.nl> wrote:
>
> > > If you do studio work or low light, not moving objects and you want the
> > > highest possible resolution, dynamic and tonal range, check this out:
>
> > >http://www.nikon-box.com/MultiX/
>
> > > Much better than any normal way of shooting with the D300 !
>
> > > If you're happy with the results and save 3000,- dollars because you realize
> > > that now all you need is the D300 instead of the D3, feel free to donate me
> > > some of all that saved money. ) Maybe I can finally buy that lens...
>
> > > --
> > > Sosumi
>
> > How about something really over the top? Olympus E-510, 50 frames
> > stacked, 1600 ISO, HQ JPEG mode. Done with "Registax"http://www.astronomie.be/registax/
>
> > 1 frame:http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/92591393/original
>
> > 50 frames:http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/92591393/original
>
> OOPS! Here's the 50 frame one!!
>
> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/92591428/original

The nice thing about registax is that it also automatically aligns the
frames. So I sometimes set my camera to 5fps and take 10-15 severely
underexposed handheld shots, which I then stack. The main difficulty I
have is that (obviously) I can't see a thing through the viewfinder
(since we're talking about an effective ISO in the tens of thousands
for each shot), so composition is a bit hit and miss: I've never
gotten anything I'd like to print this way, compositionally speaking.
A tripod's better if you can use one, you can look at the lcd and
adjust if it's too dark to see.
 >> Stay informed about: D300 shoots like D3 !!! 

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 20:48:03 -0000, "Sosumi" <sosumi.RemoveThis@home.nl> wrote in
<Vbednd6MNqMaVjXanZ2dnUVZ8vKdnZ2d.RemoveThis@novis.pt>:

>If you do studio work or low light, not moving objects and you want the
>highest possible resolution, dynamic and tonal range, check this out:
>
>http://www.nikon-box.com/MultiX/
>
>Much better than any normal way of shooting with the D300 !
>
>If you're happy with the results and save 3000,- dollars because you realize
>that now all you need is the D300 instead of the D3, feel free to donate me
>some of all that saved money. ) Maybe I can finally buy that lens...

Welcome to the party! Works with any camera.
See thread "Noise Reduction By Image Averaging"
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/b9d1df059f100e26/d6b00a2ac821298f#d6b00a2ac821298f>

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: D300 shoots like D3 !!! 

"John Navas" <spamfilter1 RemoveThis @navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:k9jhq35nnc3claf9p05hmk843h307106qr@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 20:48:03 -0000, "Sosumi" <sosumi RemoveThis @home.nl> wrote in
> <Vbednd6MNqMaVjXanZ2dnUVZ8vKdnZ2d RemoveThis @novis.pt>:
>
>>If you do studio work or low light, not moving objects and you want the
>>highest possible resolution, dynamic and tonal range, check this out:
>>
>>http://www.nikon-box.com/MultiX/
>>
>>Much better than any normal way of shooting with the D300 !
>>
>>If you're happy with the results and save 3000,- dollars because you
>>realize
>>that now all you need is the D300 instead of the D3, feel free to donate
>>me
>>some of all that saved money. ) Maybe I can finally buy that lens...
>
> Welcome to the party! Works with any camera.
> See thread "Noise Reduction By Image Averaging"
> <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/b9d1df059f100e26/d6b00a2ac821298f#d6b00a2ac821298f>
>

This is totally different from what I do. No software is used! All in
camera, except the NEF to JPG conversion.
It's not averaging, but multiple exposure with autogain plus bracketing.
But still, it's also a good idea. Never heard of it before.


--
Sosumi
 >> Stay informed about: D300 shoots like D3 !!! 

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 21:12:10 -0000, "Sosumi" <sosumi.RemoveThis@home.nl> wrote in
<zeCdnRWq_9KyTDXaRVnyiwA.RemoveThis@novis.pt>:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter1.RemoveThis@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:k9jhq35nnc3claf9p05hmk843h307106qr@4ax.com...

>> Welcome to the party! Works with any camera.
>> See thread "Noise Reduction By Image Averaging"
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/b9d1df059f100e26/d6b00a2ac821298f#d6b00a2ac821298f>
>
>This is totally different from what I do. No software is used! All in
>camera, except the NEF to JPG conversion.
>It's not averaging, but multiple exposure with autogain plus bracketing.

That's still image averaging, albeit in camera instead of in
post-processing.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: D300 shoots like D3 !!! 

"John Navas" <spamfilter1 RemoveThis @navasgroup.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:jalhq3lnotrjsk4j92gnbiiqt4kl75fjvg@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 21:12:10 -0000, "Sosumi" <sosumi RemoveThis @home.nl> wrote in
> <zeCdnRWq_9KyTDXaRVnyiwA RemoveThis @novis.pt>:
>
> >"John Navas" <spamfilter1 RemoveThis @navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >news:k9jhq35nnc3claf9p05hmk843h307106qr@4ax.com...
>
> >> Welcome to the party! Works with any camera.
> >> See thread "Noise Reduction By Image Averaging"
> >>
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/b9d1d
f059f100e26/d6b00a2ac821298f#d6b00a2ac821298f>
> >
> >This is totally different from what I do. No software is used! All in
> >camera, except the NEF to JPG conversion.
> >It's not averaging, but multiple exposure with autogain plus bracketing.
>
> That's still image averaging, albeit in camera instead of in
> post-processing.

the same way the K10D is doing it ?
 >> Stay informed about: D300 shoots like D3 !!! 

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87wspjysdl.fld@apaflo.com...
> "Sosumi" <sosumi.RemoveThis@home.nl> wrote:
>>
>>This is totally different from what I do. No software is used! All in
>
> The software is in the camera, rather than on your
> computer. It's still software that does it.

True, but like everything, software is not the same. Sharpening with NX
Capture gives much better results than PS.
Besides, now all info is put directly to one single frame, so it saves time
too.

>>camera, except the NEF to JPG conversion.
>>It's not averaging, but multiple exposure with autogain plus bracketing.
>
> It *is* averaging, and it is *not* bracketing.
>
> "Autogain" means that it averages the entire set.

If it's averaging, then when I make 5 shots with multiple exposure with the
*same* exposure, I should get the same result, right? But I don't. The
bracketed shots have more detail, less noise and more range.

>>But still, it's also a good idea. Never heard of it before.
>
> Your comparison to the D3 is nonsense, because the D3
> can do exactly the same thing. Except of course the D3
> has an FX sensor and higher ISO with less noise... so
> the results are even better than with the D300.

Gee whiz! Lighten up! Do I have to put a smiley for every time I'm kidding?


--
Sosumi
 >> Stay informed about: D300 shoots like D3 !!! 

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 22:47:25 -0000, "Sosumi" <sosumi.RemoveThis@home.nl> wrote in
<rvOdnc0KPP3iejXaRVnyhwA.RemoveThis@novis.pt>:

>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>news:87wspjysdl.fld@apaflo.com...

>> The software is in the camera, rather than on your
>> computer. It's still software that does it.
>
>True, but like everything, software is not the same. Sharpening with NX
>Capture gives much better results than PS.

The latest versions of PS do excellent sharpening, based on
deconvolution.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconvolution#Optics_and_other_imaging>

>> It *is* averaging, and it is *not* bracketing.
>>
>> "Autogain" means that it averages the entire set.
>
>If it's averaging, then when I make 5 shots with multiple exposure with the
>*same* exposure, I should get the same result, right?

Wrong.

>But I don't. The
>bracketed shots have more detail, less noise and more range.

Sure -- that's what image averaging is all about.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: D300 shoots like D3 !!! 

Ï "Sosumi" <sosumi.RemoveThis@home.nl> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
news:zeCdnRWq_9KyTDXaRVnyiwA@novis.pt...
>
>
>
> This is totally different from what I do. No software is used! All in
> camera, except the NEF to JPG conversion.
> It's not averaging, but multiple exposure with autogain plus bracketing.
> But still, it's also a good idea. Never heard of it before.
>
>
> --
> Sosumi


Astrophotographers do it as a matter of course, for years now.
 >> Stay informed about: D300 shoots like D3 !!!