Is there a benefit of a camera with superior dynamic range?

[george013]

ADL will
1)turn your metering mode in matrix,
2)will change exposure more according to the highlights
3) when shooting in JPG the underexposed parts will be corrected

So leaving the raw with an "underexposed" picture.


George

[george013]

Thanks for proving my point. When measuring the dynamic range in terms of EV, you're right of course that it hasn't changed. When measuring the dynamic range in terms of luminosity values of the light entering the lens, the dynamic range indeed has changed. At least that's my understanding of the term, dynamic range.

All your "well exposed" pictures are made with the same amount of light on the sensor. That's the range of light for which the sensor is sensitive. Correction of the light on the front side of the lens is done with aperture, shutter speed, filters and more tools like that. The sensor is the only constant in this.

It's the same as others said, but with other words.

George

[Mike Buckley]

ADL will
1)turn your metering mode in matrix,

Nikon's Active D-Lighting will not change the camera's metering mode. However, the manual for my Nikon camera advises that use of Active D-Lighting is most effective when using matrix metering.

[george013]

Nikon's Active D-Lighting will not change the camera's metering mode. However, the manual for my Nikon camera advises that use of Active D-Lighting is most effective when using matrix metering.

It's somewhere on one of the Nikon sites. I've always problems finding things back at them.
It's not strange though. ADL is about the whole picture, and matrix is the only metering mode that analyzes the whole picture.

George

[Manfred M]

Manfred, for info tests undertaken on a D300 showed that the exposure was reduced between 1/3 to 2/3 stop that affected the RAW file when Active D Lighting was used on High setting and metering in Matrix mode.

I found the variation was dependent upon scene content.

That aligns with my findings when I did some tests earlier on this year. The results reminded me very much of how my old video camera works - I could assign a mapping function where the bulk of the response curve is linear, but the top end (highlights) and bottom end (shadow detail) were not. This would boost the shadows and add texture to the highlights. The results would be rather similar to what Active-D lighting does.

[Stagecoach]

ADL will
1)turn your metering mode in matrix,

From my testing on a D300 it shows nothing in the Exif to support this. With ADL selected (High) the metering mode is shown in the Exif as that selected by the user (e.g. matrix, centre weighted or spot). There is no doubt a simple test that can confirm if Matrix metering is being selected without being indicated as having been selected?

(Place the camera (I used a D300) on a tripod, aim at a scene with constant lighting, select ADL High, select Aperture Priority, fixed ISO. Take three pictures, 1st in Spot metering mode, 2nd in Matrix, 3rd in Centre Weighted. You get three different speeds indicated and three different histograms)

Are you referring to what happens on a specific model of camera?

It's somewhere on one of the Nikon sites. I've always problems finding things back at them.

I have only seen references on Nikon sites that state "ADL works best in Matrix metering mode".

It's not strange though. ADL is about the whole picture, and matrix is the only metering mode that analyzes the whole picture.

That statement is not correct George.

With Nikon 'Centre Weighted' metering the camera meters the entire frame but assigns greatest weight to an area in the centre (the area of which can be user defined over a range of presets sizes).

So 'Centre Weighted' metering also analyses the whole frame/picture and biases the final result towards the centre area reading measurement.

[george013]

I can't find the more specific statement that said just before shooting the matrix metering was used to analyze the picture and calculate the correction for the exposure and pp. But I found something pointing to that.

With Active D-Lighting chosen on my Nikon D-SLR, the camera's Matrix meter will identify the amount of contrast in the scene and process the final picture with the appropriate amount of compensation to lighten—open up—the scene's shadows.

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and...-lighting.html
This happens also when the camera is using spot or centre weight metering. And that's why the warning not to use them in conjunction with adl.

With Nikon 'Centre Weighted' metering the camera meters the entire frame but assigns greatest weight to an area in the centre (the area of which can be user defined over a range of presets sizes).

So 'Centre Weighted' metering also analyses the whole frame/picture and biases the final result towards the centre area reading measurement.

And there is the warning for mentioned above.

Adl is dealing with the whole picture, spot and centre weighted are dealing with a part of the picture.

Just my thoughts.

George

[Stagecoach]

I can't find the more specific statement that said just before shooting the matrix metering was used to analyze the picture and calculate the correction for the exposure and pp. But I found something pointing to that.

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and...-lighting.html
This happens also when the camera is using spot or centre weight metering. And that's why the warning not to use them in conjunction with adl.


And there is the warning for mentioned above.

Adl is dealing with the whole picture, spot and centre weighted are dealing with a part of the picture.

Just my thoughts.

George

George,


I am only interested in facts regarding to the misleading and incorrect statements you made in post 41 (item 1) and post 44.

I repeat...................

Selecting Nikon ADL will NOT turn your metering mode in matrix.

Matrix is not the only mode that anaylses the whole scene.

(Based on Nikon D300)


The intricacies of how the camera image result responds to the metering modes with the use of ADL is irrelevant to what I have clearly stated, which is that your comments were wrong and misleading.

[pnodrog]

All metering modes are derived from the matrix metering detector array. Spot metering mode uses the central detectors of the matrix, center-weighted metering biases the reading towards the center weighed area and matrix uses all of the detection points. There is no reason to assume that the determination of the contrast across the entire matrix for active D lighting is limited because of the metering mode selected. The metering mode (what ever it is) will of course set the targeted exposure and the active D lighting based on the contrast detected from the entire matrix determine the most appropriate correction to both actual exposure and curves to try and achieve the desired exposure outcome with the best possible rendition of both the highlight and shadow areas.

However the better the dynamic range of the sensor the better the possible outcome whether it is from the utilization of active D lighting or correct exposure compensation and curve adjustment/dogging/burning etc in PP. There maybe a bit of massaging but no true substitute for dynamic range in PP.

[george013]

All metering modes are derived from the matrix metering detector array. Spot metering mode uses the central detectors of the matrix, center-weighted metering biases the reading towards the center weighed area and matrix uses all of the detection points. There is no reason to assume that the determination of the contrast across the entire matrix for active D lighting is limited because of the metering mode selected. The metering mode (what ever it is) will of course set the targeted exposure and the active D lighting based on the contrast detected from the entire matrix determine the most appropriate correction to both actual exposure and curves to try and achieve the desired exposure outcome with the best possible rendition of both the highlight and shadow areas.

However the better the dynamic range of the sensor the better the possible outcome whether it is from the utilization of active D lighting or correct exposure compensation and curve adjustment/dogging/burning etc in PP. There maybe a bit of massaging but no true substitute for dynamic range in PP.

I can life with that.


Graham,

I'll change point 1 in post 41 to 1) is using matrix metering mode.

Do you understand the contradiction between using a selected area for setting your exposure and than using an overall area to correct that eventually. That's where Nikon is warning for.

George

[pnodrog]

I can life with that.


Graham,

I'll change point 1 in post 41 to 1) is using matrix metering mode.

Do you understand the contradiction between using a selected area for setting your exposure and than using an overall area to correct that eventually. That's where Nikon is warning for.

George

I have not spotted such a warning and it is certainly not in the manual I have for my camera. However I am not surprised at such a warning as the further away the exposure is from what would be the expected exposure as determined by the entire matrix the greater the possibility of an out of balance relationship between the highlight and shadow areas. If for instance the photographer is exposing for say a high key result or a ETTR approach it will completely shift the highlight to shadow relationship and render the active D curve adjustments invalid.

[george013]

I have not spotted such a warning and it is certainly not in the manual I have for my camera. However I am not surprised at such a warning as the further away the exposure is from what would be the expected exposure as determined by the entire matrix the greater the possibility of an out of balance relationship between the highlight and shadow areas. If for instance the photographer is exposing for say a high key result or a ETTR approach it will completely shift the highlight to shadow relationship and render the active D curve adjustments invalid.

I don't think it's in the manuals. I couldn't find it there either. But by example this one on page 23/24
http://nps.nikonimaging.com/technica...nicalGuide.pdf

page 13
http://cdn-10.nikon-cdn.com/pdf/manu...alGuide_En.pdf

George

[Stagecoach]

Graham,

I'll change point 1 in post 41 to 1) is using matrix metering mode.

That again will be incorrect George if you use that statement directly under "ADL will"

Do you understand the contradiction between using a selected area for setting your exposure and than using an overall area to correct that eventually. That's where Nikon is warning for.

I have NOT made any comments whatsoever that question or suggest a preference to use of a certain 'metering mode' with respect to the use of ADL.

I have simply pointed out your two incorrect statements and now you want to go off track (as you so often do on here) and start questioning me as to whether I understand something I have not even referred to. It does get rather tiring.

[george013]

That again will be incorrect George if you use that statement directly under "ADL will"



I have NOT made any comments whatsoever that question or suggest a preference to use of a certain 'metering mode' with respect to the use of ADL.

I have simply pointed out your two incorrect statements and now you want to go off track (as you so often do on here) and start questioning me as to whether I understand something I have not even referred to. It does get rather tiring.

I just don't know what to say.
A young kid will stamp with his feet on the ground and shout "THAT"S NOT TRUE!!!". A grown up man will say "That's not true because........". I'm still waiting.
I must remind you the subject of this thread is about dynamic range and adl being mentioned as a tool to deal with it's limitations.

George

[Tronhard]

Before things went off on a tangent and took a life of their own, I understood the question was regarding the value of having cameras with a higher dynamic range - so that it the question to which I shall respond. If I have my wires crossed here then just let me know!

I think we all agreed that Dynamic Range was specifically to do with the range of shades of light that can be recorded by a camera's sensor.. The range that is captured defines the potential for manipulation within post-processing: i.e. you can't manipulate something that isn't there. So to me it is logical that a sensor with a higher dynamic range offers a greater potential for both capturing and processing wider tonal ranges, and to me that is good.

To me the benefits of having a sensor with better DR capability are that they allow us to take single shots in situations where we would otherwise have to take multiple shots at different exposures, using a fixed camera to achieve an HDR composite image, to achieve the same result.

[Stagecoach]

I just don't know what to say.
A young kid will stamp with his feet on the ground and shout "THAT"S NOT TRUE!!!". A grown up man will say "That's not true because........". I'm still waiting.
I must remind you the subject of this thread is about dynamic range and adl being mentioned as a tool to deal with it's limitations.

George

I really can not make things simpler, I suggest you re read all the posts from No 41 taking careful note of my comments regarding the two statements you made that I have very specifically referred to.

[xpatUSA]

Before things went off on a tangent and took a life of their own, I understood the question was regarding the value of having cameras with a higher dynamic range - so that it the question to which I shall respond. If I have my wires crossed here then just let me know!

I think we all agreed that Dynamic Range was specifically to do with the range of shades of light that can be recorded by a camera's sensor.. The range that is captured defines the potential for manipulation within post-processing: i.e. you can't manipulate something that isn't there. So to me it is logical that a sensor with a higher dynamic range offers a greater potential for both capturing and processing wider tonal ranges, and to me that is good.

To me the benefits of having a sensor with better DR capability are that they allow us to take single shots in situations where we would otherwise have to take multiple shots at different exposures, using a fixed camera to achieve an HDR composite image, to achieve the same result.

Quite so. If I shoot a high-contrast scene with a less-than-high DR camera - perforce exposing more for the highlights than the shadows - PP would probably demand some form of 'shadow recovery' which in turn amplifies the considerable existing noise in the camera. On the other hand, if I had shot with a D810 for example, the noise level would have been quite acceptable probably. Not to mention shooting sports under artificial lighting at high ISO . . .