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
> accompli****ng 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 re****ted 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.
|
