Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn, taken today with an iPhone 11 Pro:

Honestly...I see some blown out highlights, not just the sun, and shadows that have gone completely black.

Just like slide film

I believe the point is that it’s impressive considering it’s taken with a cell phone and all the limits such an application space presents. No one is expecting it to compare with a state of the art DSLR.

Quote
Carnos Jax
I believe the point is that it’s impressive considering it’s taken with a cell phone and all the limits such an application space presents. No one is expecting it to compare with a state of the art DSLR.

I never thought they would reach this level of image quality with these physically smaller chips. I am surprised at how far things ahem come.

---

Ways to improve web conference image and sound quality. [forums.macresource.com]

Nice photo - great example of HDR. I bet you could grab the image file and dig out additional data, too.

I believe the point is that it’s impressive considering it’s taken with a cell phone and all the limits such an application space presents.


I looked at that pic and saw many instances of detail and highlights that just shouldn't have been there.

Given that AA was posting that, I assumed before clicking that 'Dynamic range' was about 'Phone pics.

The pic is stunning, better than many dedicated PnS cameras.

It may not make every user a photographer. but at the very least they'll be a much better picture-taker.

And many photographers have said they use 'Phones as their daily, lightweight camera.

It won't compose a picture, but that's probably a good thing.

---

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

Everybody matters or nobody matters.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

-An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

Mister, that's a ten-gallon hat on a twenty-gallon head.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.

The posted image is at one quarter resolution and saved as a "web export” at 40% jpeg quality.

I've always been mystified by this HDR stuff. It's often banned from photo contests like the ones that National Geographic has. They find it just a bit too gimicky.

Black and white film has such an enormous dynamic range, that even in Ansel Adam's time, he used the zone system along with changing development times as ways of controlling this range because photographic paper simply can't cover the range that film does. In short, a negative has far more information on it than you can realistically use.

What do people view HDR images on that allows them to actually experience this fully? Is there some kind of high end monitor that would show HDR images off in their full glory?

This is an honest question.

Quote
freeradical
I've always been mystified by this HDR stuff. It's often banned from photo contests like the ones that National Geographic has. They find it just a bit too gimicky.

Black and white film has such an enormous dynamic range, that even in Ansel Adam's time, he used the zone system along with changing development times as ways of controlling this range because photographic paper simply can't cover the range that film does. In short, a negative has far more information on it than you can realistically use.

What do people view HDR images on that allows them to actually experience this fully? Is there some kind of high end monitor that would show HDR images off in their full glory?

This is an honest question.

The rise of 'computational photography' is re-defining what it means to be a 'raw' image.

In science, we use advanced dynamic range to capture far more data that can be associated with just pixel counts.

Is there some kind of high end monitor that would show HDR images off in their full glory?


Yes, several monitors are HDR compliant.

Here's a start - [www.digitaltrends.com]

And there are TVs that can HDR video.

I imagine a good printer could also render an HDR file properly.

I think HDR is very often overdone and that triggers 'gimmicky', and right fully rightfully so.

Overdoing it is like Big Box store cranking up brightness and contrast to make images <pop> in an unrealistic manner.

Well done HDR isn't really noticeable, except to somebody who appreciates deep black, great shadow detail, and solid but controlled highlights.

To mere mortals it just a 'great picture' without understanding why.


AA, that pic is even more impressive now!

---

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

Everybody matters or nobody matters.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

-An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

Mister, that's a ten-gallon hat on a twenty-gallon head.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/17/2020 08:32PM by RAMd®d.

Quote
pRICE cUBE

Quote
Carnos Jax
I believe the point is that it’s impressive considering it’s taken with a cell phone and all the limits such an application space presents. No one is expecting it to compare with a state of the art DSLR.

I never thought they would reach this level of image quality with these physically smaller chips. I am surprised at how far things ahem come.

It is unclear to me if this is the raw image or there is already a lot of "computational photography" involved.

I just don't know. Most of us here are old enough to remember all the marketing hype surrounding audio gear in the 70's and 80's. An amp with .0024% THD has measurably less distortion than an amp with only .0027% THD, and therefore having a price $500 higher is therefore justified. Right?

Black and white film has such an enormous dynamic range, that even in Ansel Adam's time, he used the zone system along with changing development times as ways of controlling this range because photographic paper simply can't cover the range that film does. In short, a negative has far more information on it than you can realistically use.

Not just that but to eliminate dodging and burning. I'd be interested to know if anyone here uses it today.

I still have a few of my colleagues/peers who still shoot their personal work on film and printing in a darkroom. One friend does processing by inspection (and taught me that process). Oh, and we need to include Minor White for kudos about the Zone System, too.

Well done HDR isn't really noticeable, except to somebody who appreciates deep black, great shadow detail, and solid but controlled highlights.

It was overused when it was new so now it's "gimmicky". But this is true that if it's used correctly it's a great tool.

I never thought they would reach this level of image quality with these physically smaller chips. I am surprised at how far things ahem come.

This. And, since hardly anyone prints photographs anymore, and views photos on a monitor, there's getting to be no reason to use a camera! One still needs an optical telephoto lens for, say, wildlife images, but that will not be necessary before too long, IMHO.

---

Disclaimer: This post is checked for correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Any attempts at humor are solely the responsibility of the author and bear no claim that any and all readers will approve or appreciate said attempt at humor.
My name is DP, and I approve this message.

An amp with .0024% THD has measurably less distortion than an amp with only .0027% THD, and therefore having a price $500 higher is therefore justified. Right?


It's a sliding scale.

At one end is poor, less that mediocre quality, at the other is super ne ultra plus.

Without a doubt, some people can hear sonic differences that others can't.

Others may not hear them because of physical inability, or they just don't know what to listen for.

And at the very high-end of the scale, it cost cubic dollars to get specs that can only be perceived on test equipment and paper. So some people are comfortable paying for mere bragging rights.

I posit subtle differences in video are more easily perceived by more people than with audio.

As with audio, subtle differences are best observed with long term exposure to 'new and improved' and then going back to 'everyday normal'.

And sometimes education in what to look for is needed for appreciation, just as in audio's 'what to listen for'.

It also has to be done with proper kit.

For some people DVD 480p looks just like Blu-Ray, while others will see the/a difference and say 'it's not worth the price of upgrading.

I think improvement afforded by good HDR can be seen in a-b comparison, but long term exposer is best.

I would not own a set that isn't HDR capable, but like any other technology, having a feature doesn't necessarily mean it's well/properly implemented.

Upscaling/downscaling of resolution is an example.

Some people will think there set displays other resolutions just as well as native (in cheap sets this could be true!) and others will wonder 'WTF?!'.

---

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

Everybody matters or nobody matters.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

-An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

Mister, that's a ten-gallon hat on a twenty-gallon head.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.