 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / June 2007Olympus to implement in-camera automatic HDR imaging?
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fneta html%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=25&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=olympus&OS=olympus &RS=olympus If I understand this it is really a way to try to read data twice off one sensor at least twice during what will constitute a single exposure (short and long) so that gain can be adjusted for dark/light and merge the two. This would not require merging two complete images, although it might, but only parts of the image that are out of exposure range to try to increase the apparent latitude. The description mentions that if movement is detected, meaning a change in image data from the short to the long exposure, the long exposure is discarded. I have wondered since the beginning of digital time why such a system could not be implemented. Olympus is positioned to do this with its "live view" dual sensor dSLRs: why can't imaging data be incorporated from both sensors? Based on my limited technical expertise this could be a more complex but technically better solution than the Kodak change to the Beyer filter which would seem to have to lead to less imaging data coming off the sensor. [] > Olympus is positioned to do this with its "live view" dual sensor > dSLRs: why can't imaging data be incorporated from both sensors? Optical alignment tolerances? David > Olympus is positioned to do this with its "live view" dual sensor dSLRs: why > can't imaging data be incorporated from both sensors? The second sensor that handles the live preview is a cheap small thing, not a full fledged sensor in its own right Ray >> Olympus is positioned to do this with its "live view" dual sensor dSLRs: >> why [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ray Yes maybe but it has to help the Oly 4/3rds, any improvement will be welcome. > If I understand this it is really a way to try to read data twice off one > sensor at least twice during what will constitute a single exposure (short [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I have wondered since the beginning of digital time why such a system could > not be implemented. For the same reason we prefer single-exposure cameras to scanning backends or "one chip, 3 filters in succession" methods, even though they can deliver superior results: Subject movement. Otherwise I would have an even better solution: a short(ish) exposure or two to find out the relative light levels, then extrapolate that so that the sensor well is nearly, but never completely, full. Make a long(er) exposure, which is interrupted pixel-by-pixel as they reach their calculated "full" exposure. The exposure time for the single pixel and their (now exactly) measured fillgrade gives you the exact strength of light with practically zero noise in the dark, at the cost of a much longer exposure. > Olympus is positioned to do this with its "live view" dual sensor dSLRs: why > can't imaging data be incorporated from both sensors? Because they are not aligned 100% and they do not cover the same field of view. You may also try and read up on 3-chip cameras. This technique is used in (more expensive) video cameras and has long been used in professional equipment, but not in still cameras. Guess there must be a reason, since the pay-off (much better colour resolution, better luminance resolution) would be good to have. IIRC they have been experimenting with these things ... > Based on my limited technical expertise this could be a more complex but > technically better solution than the Kodak change to the Beyer filter which > would seem to have to lead to less imaging data coming off the sensor. Kodak is simply reducing the colour resolution for a higher luminance resolution and luminance suscepibility. I would have preferred a dedicated b/w camera (with full luminance resolution, and at least the same sensitivity), but ... who wants b/w these days? -Wolfgang If the photos turn out like some of the totally unrealistic HDR results I have seen then no thanks. Mind you I guess Olympus has to do this to try and keep up with the APS-C sensored cameras. > If the photos turn out like some of the totally unrealistic HDR results I > have seen then no thanks. Mind you I guess Olympus has to do this to try and > keep up with the APS-C sensored cameras. I agree on both points. HDR images just look weird. Much like those infinite DOF images compiled using dozens of images taken at different focus points. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.