P. J. Alling wrote on 10/24/18 12:39 PM:
It already does that and if it could everything would be recorded in a
uniform grey.
No, it uses a much smaller number of sensor sites to take a guess at
exposure, rather than looking at everything, setting the raw exposure so
that only at most a certain percentage is at, or close to, the clipping
point.
Similarly, it could also analyze the dynamic range of the scene and find
the ISO that optimizes for that dynamic range, allowing you the fastest
shutter and/or greatest depth of field within the dynamic range of that
scene without clipping the brights or losing the shadow detail to noise.
For landscape photos with DR that exceeds the ability of the sensor, it
could optimize the bracketing to get all of the detail in the scene, to
be compositied later in post processing.
I find it bothersome that the camera software is *only* optimized for
creating jpegs in the camera, rather than collecting the raw images to
give the best photos possible after post processing.
On 10/24/2018 2:20 PM, l...@red4est.com wrote:
I have long wished that I could have the camera take a frame and
analyze all of the pixels for exposure. It wouldn't be good for action
but would be great for still lifes, landscape etc.
On October 24, 2018 8:21:11 AM PDT, Igor PDML-StR <pdml...@komkon.org>
wrote:
While I agree that there is a certain limit of how much can be done
AFTER
the photographic information is recorded. (Note the careful language
here!)
But the software can play a big role in actually recording that
photographic information: it can "thoughtfully" control the hardware to
improve the initial quality of that photographic information. Simple
examples are multiple shots with bracketing of
exposure/focus/...(possibly
focal length, separately aperture and exposure time, e.g. for
DOF-related
effects, etc.).
(But then, with a more capable and complicated (or specialized)
hardware a
more sophisticated software can have more options.)
I'd say that a large portion of what we SEE is what we THINK what we
see,
i.e. a large portion of the image that we see is done in the processing
(in the brain), - and not just what is recorded by the sensor(s) (the
eyes).
The eye would not have been such an amazing and irreproducible optical
instrument if weren't for the brain's ability to process the
information
it receives from the eye.
And just in case you forgot, - it starts with a simple thing: the image
we see is upside down. :-)
And mind that what you and I "see" could be very different. Just
because
our software (aka brain) is different.
But we cannot compare the image in your head to that in mine.
And those in Canada, now, can legally affect that software to boost
those images. (What is called "creative effects" in cameras and
cellphones.)
Cheers,
Igor
P. J. Alling Tue, 23 Oct 2018 07:35:08 -0700 wrote:
There's really only so much you can do with code, before you're no
longer
recording a scene, and are actually generating it, which is art not
photography. Personally I prefer my art to be produced by humans not
by
machines mainly because machine art is kinda dull.
On 10/23/2018 10:10 AM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/22/the-future-of-photography-is-code/
Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/collections/72157612824732477/
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
