Digital camera (P&S or DSLR) with built in HDR feature

<aniramca DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189555711.257007.238080@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>I am just wondering whether HDR feature can be embedded in their image
> processing (or using a special sensor) in a digital camera. Is this
> possible? Will it likely be included in future cameras - just another
> feature or option before taking the photos? Or is such a digital
> camera already here? I know some people will ask this necessity as
> there are softwares (photoshop CS, Photomatix, and many others) that
> can do this job as a post processing. It is fine for them who spend
> hundred of hours playing around with 20 MB RAW photo files, and do a
> lot of post processing, etc. Unfortunately, there are likely others
> like me who must do something else to make a living (i.e. not a
> professional) and there are not enough hours in a day to spend the
> time post-processing photos. If I have to do this, it means that I
> have to cut my sleep, or let the grass in my yard grows. (This is
> another reason that I keep having a nagging question about the digital
> camera which has better processing engine than the others, so that it
> can give me the better quality and rich colour photos without spending
> extra time to play around with in teh computer).
> Thanks for info
>

That is a huge paragraph.

Including a pre-programmed HDR mode might be a good idea but, that would
take all the fun out of it. In someways, the mode is already at your
fingertips. Most cameras designed for photographers, (not point-and-shoot),
have the ability to automatically bracket the exposure.

At any rate, what is so difficult about ratcheting the shutter speed up or
down as you make your exposures?
 >> Stay informed about: Digital camera (P&S or DSLR) with built in HDR feature 

Somebody wrote:

> ...Imagine a dSLR with an
> ISO of 20,000 with noise ninja noise reduction? It would certainly open
> the door for some interesting things. But, would also increase the cost
> of a camera by $500 to $1000.

Yes, and it's available in the newest models. The $5,000 Nikon D3 for
example at ISO 25,600 (boosted).

--
Paul Furman Photography
http://edgehill.net
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com
 >> Stay informed about: Digital camera (P&S or DSLR) with built in HDR feature 

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:07:31 -0700, "Somebody" <nospam.RemoveThis@nospam.com> wrote:

>They could do some really good menu
>interfaces, trully powerful black and white conversion instead of just
>desaturating the color image and more.

You must be using some older cameras or something. One that I tested for this
doesn't just desaturate the image for B&W modes. Comparing two images taken of
the same color chart, one taken in color and another in B&W mode, then using a
channel mixer in an editor to make the color image's color squares match the
gray levels in the B&W image's respective gray squares. It came out to be the
same proportions as if seen by the eye or if doing B&W darkroom work. From
memory, the channels in the color photo came out to be something like 21% red,
64% green, and 15% blue to match the same gray levels in the B&W image. A simple
desaturation wouldn't cause that. That was the first thing I tried in the editor
with the color photo, just desaturating it, the gray levels between the two were
all way off.

It was one of the Canon PowerShots that I tested for this. I was curious to see
how they were doing it.
 >> Stay informed about: Digital camera (P&S or DSLR) with built in HDR feature 

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:13:38 -0700, Paul Furman <paul- DeleteThis @-edgehill.net> wrote:

>Somebody wrote:
>
>> ...Imagine a dSLR with an
>> ISO of 20,000 with noise ninja noise reduction? It would certainly open
>> the door for some interesting things. But, would also increase the cost
>> of a camera by $500 to $1000.
>
>Yes, and it's available in the newest models. The $5,000 Nikon D3 for
>example at ISO 25,600 (boosted).

Funny that. I bought a Sony camera with NightShot mode over 6 years ago that has
ISO 3200 in it that's perfectly acceptable and can even take images (and videos,
even while zooming) and swiftly focus, doing all this in total darkness with
infrared light alone.

A $5,000 camera today that can't even do that? You can keep it.

Boy, do they ever have you people snowballed and brainwashed. Bend over and take
it with a smile on your face, just as you always do.
 >> Stay informed about: Digital camera (P&S or DSLR) with built in HDR feature 

Brandon Grande wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:13:38 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-.RemoveThis@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Somebody wrote:
>>
>>>...Imagine a dSLR with an
>>>ISO of 20,000 with noise ninja noise reduction? It would certainly open
>>>the door for some interesting things. But, would also increase the cost
>>>of a camera by $500 to $1000.
>>
>>Yes, and it's available in the newest models. The $5,000 Nikon D3 for
>>example at ISO 25,600 (boosted).
>
>
> Funny that. I bought a Sony camera with NightShot mode over 6 years ago that has
> ISO 3200

3,200 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 25,600

and ISO 6,400 without boosting

> in it that's perfectly acceptable and can even take images (and videos,
> even while zooming) and swiftly focus, doing all this in total darkness with
> infrared light alone.
>
> A $5,000 camera today that can't even do that? You can keep it.
>
> Boy, do they ever have you people snowballed and brainwashed. Bend over and take
> it with a smile on your face, just as you always do.
>


--
Paul Furman Photography
http://edgehill.net
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com
 >> Stay informed about: Digital camera (P&S or DSLR) with built in HDR feature 

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:38:55 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-.TakeThisOut@-edgehill.net> wrote:

>Brandon Grande wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:13:38 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-.TakeThisOut@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Somebody wrote:
>>>
>>>>...Imagine a dSLR with an
>>>>ISO of 20,000 with noise ninja noise reduction? It would certainly open
>>>>the door for some interesting things. But, would also increase the cost
>>>>of a camera by $500 to $1000.
>>>
>>>Yes, and it's available in the newest models. The $5,000 Nikon D3 for
>>>example at ISO 25,600 (boosted).
>>
>>
>> Funny that. I bought a Sony camera with NightShot mode over 6 years ago that has
>> ISO 3200
>
>3,200 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 25,600
>
>and ISO 6,400 without boosting
>

1 real f-stop, and 2 fake ones, does not a $4,500 increase in cost, nor a sale,
make. You are more than welcome to be first in line to buy one. I'll just watch
and laugh if you don't mind. I'll gladly give up that extremely meager increase
in favor of the extra capabilities not even in that camera, which I already
bought over 6 years ago. Put it in perspective. You're being taken for an
ultimate fool. That must be the new marketing campaign. "Let's see just what
they are willing to bend over and take, and even be happy about paying for the
royal reaming we're going to give them." While they laugh all the way to the
bank at the expense of turning you into an even bigger fool than last year.

That's *exactly* what it boils down to.
 >> Stay informed about: Digital camera (P&S or DSLR) with built in HDR feature 

Brandon Grande wrote:
> Paul Furman wrote:
>>Brandon Grande wrote:
>>>Paul Furman wrote:
>>>>Somebody wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>...Imagine a dSLR with an
>>>>>ISO of 20,000 with noise ninja noise reduction? It would certainly open
>>>>>the door for some interesting things. But, would also increase the cost
>>>>>of a camera by $500 to $1000.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, and it's available in the newest models. The $5,000 Nikon D3 for
>>>>example at ISO 25,600 (boosted).
>>>
>>>Funny that. I bought a Sony camera with NightShot mode
>>>over 6 years ago that has ISO 3200

I see the old $1,000 Sony DSCF707 with Nightshot at ISO 400 but ISO 3200
doesn't appear to have come till this spring with the DSC-H9, and
infrared is different from regular low light photography.


>>3,200 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 25,600
>>
>>and ISO 6,400 without boosting
>
> 1 real f-stop, and 2 fake ones, does not a $4,500 increase in cost,
> nor a sale, make.

I would guess everything over 800 is pushed on the Sony. That would be
three stops faster and probably at least another two stops improvement
possible in the lens, exponentially less shutter lag, etc. Plenty of
differences. I'm not saying the D3 is a bargain or that I'm going to run
out & buy it immediately, just that 'Somebody's dream of ISO 20,000 is
already exceeded if somebody wants that. Personally, I would find a
clean fast ISO 6400 very useful, the 25600 is in fact barely useable.
 >> Stay informed about: Digital camera (P&S or DSLR) with built in HDR feature 

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:08:31 -0700, aniramca wrote:

> I am just wondering whether HDR feature can be embedded in their image
> processing (or using a special sensor) in a digital camera. Is this
> possible? Will it likely be included in future cameras - just another
> feature or option before taking the photos? Or is such a digital
> camera already here? I know some people will ask this necessity as
> there are softwares (photoshop CS, Photomatix, and many others) that
> can do this job as a post processing. It is fine for them who spend
> hundred of hours playing around with 20 MB RAW photo files, and do a
> lot of post processing, etc. Unfortunately, there are likely others
> like me who must do something else to make a living (i.e. not a
> professional) and there are not enough hours in a day to spend the
> time post-processing photos. If I have to do this, it means that I
> have to cut my sleep, or let the grass in my yard grows. (This is
> another reason that I keep having a nagging question about the digital
> camera which has better processing engine than the others, so that it
> can give me the better quality and rich colour photos without spending
> extra time to play around with in teh computer).
> Thanks for info

Have you tried simply applying a curve correction to a raw file in
something like ufraw? It's not full blown hdr, but it can yield some
fairly impressive results - and it does not take very long - a metter of a
few seconds.
 >> Stay informed about: Digital camera (P&S or DSLR) with built in HDR feature 

Paul Furman wrote:

> Personally, I would find a clean fast ISO 6400 very useful

Check out the ISO 6400 sample here:
<http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/digitalcamera/slr/d3/sample.htm>
 >> Stay informed about: Digital camera (P&S or DSLR) with built in HDR feature 

ray wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:08:31 -0700, aniramca wrote:
>
>>I am just wondering whether HDR feature can be embedded in their image
>>processing (or using a special sensor) in a digital camera. Is this
>>possible? Will it likely be included in future cameras - just another
>>feature or option before taking the photos? Or is such a digital
>>camera already here? I know some people will ask this necessity as
>>there are softwares (photoshop CS, Photomatix, and many others) that
>>can do this job as a post processing. It is fine for them who spend
>>hundred of hours playing around with 20 MB RAW photo files, and do a
>>lot of post processing, etc. Unfortunately, there are likely others
>>like me who must do something else to make a living (i.e. not a
>>professional) and there are not enough hours in a day to spend the
>>time post-processing photos. If I have to do this, it means that I
>>have to cut my sleep, or let the grass in my yard grows. (This is
>>another reason that I keep having a nagging question about the digital
>>camera which has better processing engine than the others, so that it
>>can give me the better quality and rich colour photos without spending
>>extra time to play around with in teh computer).
>>Thanks for info
>
> Have you tried simply applying a curve correction to a raw file in
> something like ufraw? It's not full blown hdr, but it can yield some
> fairly impressive results - and it does not take very long - a metter of a
> few seconds.

And it's possible to upload custom curves for in-camera jpeg processing
with Nikon cameras if you buy their additional software.

--
Paul Furman Photography
http://edgehill.net
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com
 >> Stay informed about: Digital camera (P&S or DSLR) with built in HDR feature 

I think what the original post is about is why camera manufacturers are not
doing more to increase the pretty lame exposure latitude of current digital
sensors.
It is not clear that the new D3 sensor has any greater latitude or is
accomplishing its rumored ISO feats with improved data processing.
RAW formats allow, with much post exposure manipulation, the creation of
images with a greater apparent than real increase in latitude. You are
really bringing up the underexposed areas and trying to hide the noise. You
can do nothing with overexposed areas because of the limited exposure
latitude of digital sensors to over-exposure, which has been reported to be
as little as 1/10th of a stop. Sekonic uses that figure to try to sell
exposure meters so who knows if it is true or not. However it is obvious
from experience that current dSLRs have very, very limited latitude to
over-exposure.
Current in camera jpeg processing algorithms truncate image data to 8 bits
which in addition to limiting color gamut also limits exposure latitude even
further.
There have been a few announced patent filings that relate to this issue,
including the Kodak modification of the Beyer filter which, if it works,
would probably benefit low end more than high end sensors.
 >> Stay informed about: Digital camera (P&S or DSLR) with built in HDR feature 

gowanoh wrote:
> I think what the original post is about is why camera manufacturers are not
> doing more to increase the pretty lame exposure latitude of current digital
> sensors.
> It is not clear that the new D3 sensor has any greater latitude or is
> accomplishing its rumored ISO feats with improved data processing.
> RAW formats allow, with much post exposure manipulation, the creation of
> images with a greater apparent than real increase in latitude. You are
> really bringing up the underexposed areas and trying to hide the noise. You
> can do nothing with overexposed areas because of the limited exposure
> latitude of digital sensors to over-exposure, which has been reported to be
> as little as 1/10th of a stop.

That's most interesting; doing "full range" HDR involves
multiple bracketing shots, which may bring the aggregate
time to take the shot unacceptably high.

But taking an extra frame to ensure that highlights aren't
overexposed can, indeed must, be done with a shorter
exposure than the "main" frame.

Perhaps a single "bracket" shot, at +2 EV,
whilst not bringing true "HDR" (*), might
go a long way to prevent highlight-burn, after
suitable HDR-like processing?

BugBear

(*) of course some people don't like HDR,
or more particularly strangely tone-mapped
HDR's anyway.
 >> Stay informed about: Digital camera (P&S or DSLR) with built in HDR feature 

"gowanoh" <fac_187 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ue_Fi.6997$JD.3114@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>I think what the original post is about is why camera manufacturers are not
>doing more to increase the pretty lame exposure latitude of current digital
>sensors.
> It is not clear that the new D3 sensor has any greater latitude or is
> accomplishing its rumored ISO feats with improved data processing.
> RAW formats allow, with much post exposure manipulation, the creation of
> images with a greater apparent than real increase in latitude. You are
> really bringing up the underexposed areas and trying to hide the noise.
> You can do nothing with overexposed areas because of the limited exposure
> latitude of digital sensors to over-exposure, which has been reported to
> be as little as 1/10th of a stop. Sekonic uses that figure to try to sell
> exposure meters so who knows if it is true or not. However it is obvious
> from experience that current dSLRs have very, very limited latitude to
> over-exposure.
> Current in camera jpeg processing algorithms truncate image data to 8 bits
> which in addition to limiting color gamut also limits exposure latitude
> even further.
> There have been a few announced patent filings that relate to this issue,
> including the Kodak modification of the Beyer filter which, if it works,
> would probably benefit low end more than high end sensors.
>
>

They have or at least Fuji has. However at best the S3 and S5 are a nitch
market. I think the current sensor technology has given about all it can in
exposure range, noise and resolution. Sure companies are going to keep
milking it for ever buck they can get, but I think 10MP is about the limit
for the current sensors (if you want something tangible in return). If you
just want bragging rights then they should be able to push these to 50 or
60MP in a 2 oz compact point and shoot. Just don't expect much in picture
quality.

They might be able to push the current sensors more if they put in more
powerful processors and more memory for the camera to work on the images
with. Then something like in camera Noise Ninja would be possible and this
would let you get a little more out of the current technology without giving
up a whole lot in final image quality.

Personally however I don't think that the sensor technology is the only
thing that is about at its useful limit. I think the whole concept film
camera with digital filling has went about as far as it can go as well. We
really need to start looking at ways of doing away with the shutter, lenses,
etc. All of this type of stuff should be on the sensor. This would give you
a very powerful camera in a very small package. But, this won't happen
anytime soon either. Greedy companies like milking outdated technology for
every penny they can get. That is why most cars sold in the world still use
gas even though that technology like current camera technology (the basics
of it) are almost 100 years old and over 100 years old. Got to milk that cow
until dust comes out.

Somebody!
 >> Stay informed about: Digital camera (P&S or DSLR) with built in HDR feature