Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Based on his replies, it seems that our Science community needs to study English LOL.
Dynamic range is the “ratio between the largest and smallest values of a changeable quantity.” Hence the name "Dynamic" because it is not a measurement whose starting point is always null or zero.

The feedback from the largest and smallest value can be attributed to many things other than imaging related stuffs like film. Example, a microphones sensitivity & frequency response is expressed as dynamic range.

Bit Depth has a dynamic range or the amount of steps it can represent but it is not dynamic range per se and the use of the word it in lieu of the other is what's messing the discussion.

The height of the stairs and the number of steps is a perfect explanation of the relationship between bit depth and dynamic range. How someone could see past that, I could not comprehend.

Just think of this; Film does not have bit-depth neither does a microphone.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Based on your replies, does that include spelling and punctuation?

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

LOL
Color, colour? Americuh, Brit or Anglo?
Me thinks them speaks Latin...

bclaff Loc: Sherborn, MA (18mi SW of Boston)

The imperfection in that analogy is that it implies that the values are solely integers (number of steps).
But in the real dynamic range situation you would need a fractional number of steps (for example 2.3) to represent the noise floor (read noise).
A crude example would be 16000 steps and 2.3 "steps" noise floor or log2(16000/2.3) = 12.8 EV dynamic range

hjkarten Loc: San Diego, California

Time to pack it in.
Harvey

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Do analogies need quantum details?

Should we explain length using a meter with; "but you must consider the viewing distance, angle, ambient temperature & the nearest massive object as they all affect the bending of light as one takes the measurement. Then add the thermal expansion and curvature of the meter stick, the material being measured plus the width of the graduations"?

Wasn't it supposed to be re-presentation of the idea (usually simplified) in another form to convey the "general" thought?

No doubt even the most perfect analogy will not provide the whole knowledge, but one needs to walk first before one can run.

That aside, the steps were referring to the quantization created digitally by bit-depth and not to the analog EV values.

bclaff Loc: Sherborn, MA (18mi SW of Boston)

My point is that the discrete steps implies an integer value for the noise floor and leads to the incorrect assumption that, for example, a 14-bit ADC means 14 stops of dynamic range.

TucsonDave Loc: Tucson, Arizona

As Harvey suggested, it is time to close this out. You are being detailed to a fault, particularly for your current "audience" in general. Bit depth changes have influence but not directly on changes in dynamic range. Great. Lets move on.

Thanks for your insight.
David

gwilliams6

I agree with most of what you are saying here. I just don't see any mass movement in this declining camera market towards APS-C and micro 4/3rds . The numbers just don't support your premise at this point. All the major fullframe mirrorless makers are making more compact fullframe cameras that cost less. The makers see that as the way to satisfy those needs while keeping all the advantages of fullframe sensors. Also makers are making more compact and more affordable fullframe lenses too. Sony, Tamron, Samyang and others are all introducing very compact fullframe lenses, no larger or heavier than lenses made for APS-C and Micro 4/3rds lenses, and more affordable than other fullframe lenses.


If you can "have your cake and eat it to" with respect to compact, light, affordable fullframe cameras and lenses, I don't see any need to accept the photographic compromises of APS-C and Micro 4/3rds sensors. Excellent APS-C and Micro 4/3rds gear will still be developed and released.

Still the major development money is being spent in fullframe tech right now, and a lot of that development money is going into engineering smaller, lighter, more affordable fullframe gear. . I think your premise that the camera market will move to APS-C and Micro 4/3rds is a bit of wishful thinking. Maybe you will be right, but most industry experts don't see the industry moving in that direction, (some even predict Micro 4/3rds is on the way out), and the trend in sales numbers supports that. As ALL camera sales numbers continue to decline, fullframe included, APS-C sales percentages remain relativity stable as overall APS-C numbers decline, but Micro 4/3rds percentages AND sales numbers are declining.


No problem, we all have different perspectives on this issue and what the future will bring. . Cheers

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

As an ex Senior Staf Engineer (E.E.) I can say that 14 bits is the range of the A/D only. But in a camera there is much more that can limit the dynamic range of the system.

hjkarten Loc: San Diego, California

Absolutely true! The 14 bits is the upper limit constrained by the ADC, but in practice, it is always less than 14 bits. That's true for almost every application, whether photography, audio, spectroscopy, spike trains or cooking with chocolate chips. [sic]
We now should do a riff on chocolate chips.
Regards,
Harvey

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The surest way to corrupt a novice is to explain the importance of dynamic range.

bclaff Loc: Sherborn, MA (18mi SW of Boston)

You may find the article Quantization Error in Practice interesting (heavy math).
You can get at least 1/2 stops more dynamic range out of an ADC that one might think; perhaps up to 0.8 stops.
So a 14-bit ADC can capture at least 14.5 stops and perhaps 14.8 stops of dynamic range.
There are cameras that push this boundary. One example is the Nikon D7200 with an EDR of 14.1

bleirer

Reading his section on ettr makes me think twice. I had assumed no value in using ISO to push right, but he seems to say it is useful at lower ISO but not high ISO.