4 ms·

If quality matter for you, smartphone is not answer. It won't replace camera designed for taking photographs with much higher dynamic range. Sure, heavy DSLR's

If quality matter for you, smartphone is not answer. It won't replace camera designed for taking photographs with much higher dynamic range. Sure, heavy DSLR's are annoying to care on trip but again... If you are casual snapshot taker, then smartphone is enough. Or there are compact professional cameras like Fujifilm x100 series.

astrange 4y ago
Smartphones have better dynamic range than dedicated cameras because they have better software and exposure stacking. If your subject stands still, that is. That’s why iPhones can save HDR photos you can actually view in HDR. People editing camera raws in Lightroom still export them to sRGB JPEG at the end of the day. The main thing they’re doing with the dynamic range in those sensors is getting rid of it because there’s no ecosystem to view it. (Oddly, there is an ecosystem for HDR video, just not stills.)
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  Plenty of monitors with higher dynamic range than sRGB, and plenty of people take pictures to print them, and there's also plenty of times you need the dynamic range to get something out of the shadows and highlights. And if you have a still subject, any serious camera will allow you to do bracketing so you can combine shots.
  - astrange 4y ago
    > Plenty of monitors with higher dynamic range than sRGB Being P3 (WCG) doesn't mean it's also HDR or that it's calibrated well or that the display software is handling it. > And if you have a still subject, any serious camera will allow you to do bracketing so you can combine shots. So you can combine them how into what? There's no good software for it. HDR combining software typically creates SDR images, not eg EXR files, and it usually looks bad doing it. > and plenty of people take pictures to print them What's that got to do with HDR?? Surely reflective media has less dynamic range than transmissive media…
    - sudosysgen 4y ago
      > Being P3 (WCG) doesn't mean it's also HDR or that it's calibrated well or that the display software is handling it. There are plenty of monitors with both a larger gammut and higher dynamic range. > So you can combine them how into what? There's no good software for it. HDR combining software typically creates SDR images, not eg EXR files, and it usually looks bad doing it. So you can combine it into a raw image with higher dynamic range. FF cameras generally have 12-13 stops of dynamic range without bracketing at 14 bits per channel, so you can absolutely tonemap them into an HDR image, even without bracketing. With bracketing, you can generate a raw image which will have 24 bits or more of dynamic range, which will actually be useful. I'm not talking about cheesy HDR combining software, I'm talking about, for example, combining images into Lightroom with a high bit-depth workflow which can then be exported as an EXR or TIFF image. There's plenty of software that can generate even higher bitdepth, and these are often used in CGI to generate HDRI maps, for example. The dynamic range of the actual image of the camera far exceeds any screen you might show it on. You're really only limited by the noise floor (which is close to the theoretical limit). > What's that got to do with HDR?? Surely reflective media has less dynamic range than transmissive media… Reflective media has theoretically infinite dynamic range, you're only limited by how black your black is and of course by the printer.
- t0bia_s 4y ago
  Sorry, but HDR stacketing is something completely different from sensor dynamic range. With your logic, you can say that we can make static image with same results with any sensor.
  - astrange 4y ago
    > With your logic, you can say that we can make static image with same results with any sensor. We can't do that because of lenses and diffraction, but that's different from being able to avoid exposure and sensor noise issues. You can in fact avoid those with more sampling.

astrange 4y ago

Smartphones have better dynamic range than dedicated cameras because they have better software and exposure stacking. If your subject stands still, that is. That’s why iPhones can save HDR photos you can actually view in HDR. People editing camera raws in Lightroom still export them to sRGB JPEG at the end of the day. The main thing they’re doing with the dynamic range in those sensors is getting rid of it because there’s no ecosystem to view it. (Oddly, there is an ecosystem for HDR video, just not stills.)

sudosysgen 4y ago
Plenty of monitors with higher dynamic range than sRGB, and plenty of people take pictures to print them, and there's also plenty of times you need the dynamic range to get something out of the shadows and highlights. And if you have a still subject, any serious camera will allow you to do bracketing so you can combine shots.
- astrange 4y ago
  > Plenty of monitors with higher dynamic range than sRGB Being P3 (WCG) doesn't mean it's also HDR or that it's calibrated well or that the display software is handling it. > And if you have a still subject, any serious camera will allow you to do bracketing so you can combine shots. So you can combine them how into what? There's no good software for it. HDR combining software typically creates SDR images, not eg EXR files, and it usually looks bad doing it. > and plenty of people take pictures to print them What's that got to do with HDR?? Surely reflective media has less dynamic range than transmissive media…
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    > Being P3 (WCG) doesn't mean it's also HDR or that it's calibrated well or that the display software is handling it. There are plenty of monitors with both a larger gammut and higher dynamic range. > So you can combine them how into what? There's no good software for it. HDR combining software typically creates SDR images, not eg EXR files, and it usually looks bad doing it. So you can combine it into a raw image with higher dynamic range. FF cameras generally have 12-13 stops of dynamic range without bracketing at 14 bits per channel, so you can absolutely tonemap them into an HDR image, even without bracketing. With bracketing, you can generate a raw image which will have 24 bits or more of dynamic range, which will actually be useful. I'm not talking about cheesy HDR combining software, I'm talking about, for example, combining images into Lightroom with a high bit-depth workflow which can then be exported as an EXR or TIFF image. There's plenty of software that can generate even higher bitdepth, and these are often used in CGI to generate HDRI maps, for example. The dynamic range of the actual image of the camera far exceeds any screen you might show it on. You're really only limited by the noise floor (which is close to the theoretical limit). > What's that got to do with HDR?? Surely reflective media has less dynamic range than transmissive media… Reflective media has theoretically infinite dynamic range, you're only limited by how black your black is and of course by the printer.
t0bia_s 4y ago
Sorry, but HDR stacketing is something completely different from sensor dynamic range. With your logic, you can say that we can make static image with same results with any sensor.
- astrange 4y ago
  > With your logic, you can say that we can make static image with same results with any sensor. We can't do that because of lenses and diffraction, but that's different from being able to avoid exposure and sensor noise issues. You can in fact avoid those with more sampling.