What you say makes sense excpet when I think of it like this: I was thinking of the data captured by the sensor as basically a bitmap. If all adjusting gain (up/down) on the sensor effectively does, is to make an individual pixel, lighter or darker than it would have been otherwise, then it *seems* that the same thing could be done post-capture, sans-sensor.
So is my thinking basically correct in principle, but not necessarially so in practice? Tom C. >From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Silly HDR Question >Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 13:29:05 -0800 > >In simple terms: > >- Making one exposure and than adjusting it once out of the camera >always locks you into whatever happens to be the maximum analog >dynamic range of the sensor. If elements of a scene fall outside that >dynamic range, you get black/noise or total saturation, no matter how >much adjustability a RAW converter might have or how much data >recovery it can do. > >- Making a set of exposures at different exposure settings and then >integrating them together allows you to window the scene with a >dynamic range wider than what the sensor can acquire in one exposure. > >Godfrey > >On Nov 4, 2006, at 11:56 AM, Tom C wrote: > > > OK. That being the case, how is adjusting the exposure of a .PEF > > file after > > the fact different than doing it in camera? I realize there *is a* > > difference because a .PEF file is not really raw, and obviously the > > sensor > > gain is out of the picture. What *is* the difference? > > > > Maybe I don't really care about the technical details as long as > > the results > > are what I want.... > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >[email protected] >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
