# Magic Lantern Improves 5D Mark III Dynamic Range to 14 Stops



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 16, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14007"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14007">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>From Magic Lantern

</strong>The Magic Lantern team is letting the world know that they are at the beginning of a new function for the 5D Mark III and EOS 7D. Apparently they’ve figured out a way to boost dynamic range by 3 stops by using a new way of making a photograph by using ISO 100 for some of the vertical lines and ISO 1600 for the rest of it. Sounds wild to us, not sure how they’re doing that. There will be a process to combining the lines of 100/1600 ISO to give you the full resolution file.</p>
<p><strong>From Alex at ML</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><em>Works for both photos and raw videos on Canon EOS 5D Mark III. On Canon EOS 7D, photo only (since it can’t do raw video).</em></li>
<li><em>What are the benefits? more dynamic range (less shadow noise).</em></li>
<li><em>The functionality was not really in Canon firmware, but in the chip that samples the sensor. Canon firmware does not make any use of it (they just set both ISO “registers” to the same value). It was implemented on the hardware side though (and that’s why it works only on these 2 cameras, because only they have two ISO amplifiers).</em></li>
</ul>
<p><strong><a href="http://blog.planet5d.com/2013/07/magic-lantern-improves-canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-dynamic-range-to-14-stops-major-landmark/" target="_blank">Read more at Planet5D</a> | <a href="http://www.magiclantern.fm/" target="_blank">Visit Magic Lantern</a></strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jul 16, 2013)

Interesting.


----------



## peederj (Jul 16, 2013)

Well now that we are aware of this technique, we should examine the DR claims of other video manufacturers to see if this is how they're doing it. The tell-tale would be aliasing effects on high-contrast diagonals.

Which shows you how important chart tests are, and how bizarre it is that there still isn't a site that does consistent and reproducible chart tests for the entire range of video cameras. At the cost of these things, we have a right to know.


----------



## AAPhotog (Jul 16, 2013)

peederj said:


> Well now that we are aware of this technique, we should examine the DR claims of other video manufacturers to see if this is how they're doing it. The tell-tale would be aliasing effects on high-contrast diagonals.
> 
> Which shows you how important chart tests are, and how bizarre it is that there still isn't a site that does consistent and reproducible chart tests for the entire range of video cameras. At the cost of these things, we have a right to know.


You do have a right to know. Set up the websites and conduct the tests!


----------



## GDub (Jul 16, 2013)

Cool! AMAZING, actually. I've been using ML on my T2i for a while now and IT IS THE BOMB! I've been waiting for the first official "stable" release to install it on my 5DM3, but this feature will get me to load an alpha release when it's ported. I'm also looking forward to what they're fiddling with on the EOS M!


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Jul 16, 2013)

I'm looking forward to experimenting with the new technique in a day or two. I'm curious about how bad the aliasing will be in the highlights and shadows as a result of this method. I figure that if other manufactures were doing this, we would be able to spot it by looking at the highlights and shadows.

Edit: Turns out the Alexa does something similar.


----------



## tron (Jul 17, 2013)

Until a fully featured ML version is compiled and distributed for 5D3 (with 1.2.1 firmware) it is purely theoretical...


----------



## K-amps (Jul 17, 2013)

Seriously.... why doesn't Canon Hire Alex and his team.... Way back when I was done with a 350d and kit lens, I was not system dependant... I could have gone Nikon or Canon... ML brought me to the Canon camp. How many 5D2 users have stayed with Canon due to ML... it's amazing how ML has helped Canon.


----------



## RGF (Jul 17, 2013)

Very interesting but would like to understand what 14 stops mean.

In the lowest (darkest) stop, how much data is there? 8 bits or 256 gray levels, 4 bits or 16 gray levels, ...?


----------



## AAPhotog (Jul 17, 2013)

RGF said:


> Very interesting but would like to understand what 14 stops mean.
> 
> In the lowest (darkest) stop, how much data is there? 8 bits or 256 gray levels, 4 bits or 16 gray levels, ...?


If it were bright enough out side that you had a choice of either under exposing 2 stops and seeing in the shadows and having the sky blown out, or exposing for the sky and the shadows were pitch black, but the difference was 2 stops(ie exposing at 400 iso would show the sky but no shadows/1600 would show the shadows but blown out sky), this hack would enable you to keep the detail in BOTH the shadows AND the sky at the same time


----------



## AAPhotog (Jul 17, 2013)

tron said:


> Until a fully featured ML version is compiled and distributed for 5D3 (with 1.2.1 firmware) it is purely theoretical...


So you mean to tell me that this isn't practical without being able to use it with 1.2.1 firmware?
Well I must say as a 1.1.3 user, I appreciate and make use of their hard work on a day to day basis. So I could care less about being able to record through hdmi a horrible 1080 picture on another $800 device that is sold seperately.


----------



## michi (Jul 17, 2013)

Wow, talk about keeping that 7D alive!


----------



## gmrza (Jul 17, 2013)

K-amps said:


> Seriously.... why doesn't Canon Hire Alex and his team.... Way back when I was done with a 350d and kit lens, I was not system dependant... I could have gone Nikon or Canon... ML brought me to the Canon camp. How many 5D2 users have stayed with Canon due to ML... it's amazing how ML has helped Canon.



I suspect there may be more to this than immediately meets the eye, however, there is interesting possibility here for Canon to get a lot more mileage out of existing hardware.

There are however marketing issues - if this really works, we would probably see the 5DIII get more DR than a 1Dx. As for 7D users - if it works, it will be a good motivator for me not to look at a 7DII (not that I would, as having a 5DII and 5DIII mostly negates the need). For those with 7Ds, this may be the best investment protection yet. - Again, the proof of the pudding .....


----------



## CharlieB (Jul 17, 2013)

Now thats a swift kick in the pants for 'ol Canon....

I'm sure FakeChuckWestfall will be amused.....


----------



## Zv (Jul 17, 2013)

I had never even considered installing ML on any of my cameras .... Until now! This would be so flippin awesome for the 7D! Haha in your face all those who said it was dead! I knew it had one last trick up it's silicon sleeve! (Now I just hope it works!)

;D


----------



## moogul (Jul 17, 2013)

Sounds interesting. But I have a dumb question (never used ML before). Where is the link to the actual firmware file for the DR "upgrade"?

ML's download site has the latest 7D firmware from Dec. 2012. I read the post and checked the .pdf... didn't see anything or links to the file in there.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 17, 2013)

The ML team deserves our support. They are brilliant, and bringing really useful features to Canon users!


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Jul 17, 2013)

For the photography users out there, I highly suggest installing ML not just for this new DR feature, but to have ETTR and RAW histogram/zebras. 



moogul said:


> Sounds interesting. But I have a dumb question (never used ML before). Where is the link to the actual firmware file for the DR "upgrade"?
> 
> ML's download site has the latest 7D firmware from Dec. 2012. I read the post and checked the .pdf... didn't see anything or links to the file in there.



You'll probably have to wait until someone releases a build for the forum, keep an eye out on the New Ports forum.


----------



## tron (Jul 17, 2013)

AAPhotog said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Until a fully featured ML version is compiled and distributed for 5D3 (with 1.2.1 firmware) it is purely theoretical...
> ...


Relax! I meant that it is not available yet (irrespective of firmware level)


----------



## ehouli (Jul 17, 2013)

michi said:


> Wow, talk about keeping that 7D alive!



Just when I sold mine expecting Mk II next year...

if This claim made by ML it's doable and won't damage anything in the cameras in the future, makes me wonder if Canon is doing only half the work or if they are not investing in the best people.


----------



## rpt (Jul 17, 2013)

tron said:


> Until a fully featured ML version is compiled and distributed for 5D3 (with 1.2.1 firmware) it is purely theoretical...


Well you can always go back and forth between the firmware versions. It is more work though.


----------



## rpt (Jul 17, 2013)

I wonder what firmware version of the 7D they are testing on...


----------



## GDub (Jul 17, 2013)

moogul said:


> Sounds interesting. But I have a dumb question (never used ML before). Where is the link to the actual firmware file for the DR "upgrade"?
> 
> ML's download site has the latest 7D firmware from Dec. 2012. I read the post and checked the .pdf... didn't see anything or links to the file in there.



The ML thread discussing this (read it carefully) :
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=7139.0

Link to the files:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xiksvwbehzmycq4/QbuV17WuE5


----------



## AAPhotog (Jul 17, 2013)

moogul said:


> Sounds interesting. But I have a dumb question (never used ML before). Where is the link to the actual firmware file for the DR "upgrade"?
> 
> ML's download site has the latest 7D firmware from Dec. 2012. I read the post and checked the .pdf... didn't see anything or links to the file in there.



You have to build it yourself. 
Here is the code: https://bitbucket.org/hudson/magic-lantern/commits/all

If that is too much for you. Here is a link of it already built. Built by the magic lanterns forum member 'Lourenco'
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B7QlH_BH2m32aWFxbm9DNkliS0E&usp=sharing
The second link is for the 5D3 files


----------



## cliffwang (Jul 17, 2013)

K-amps said:


> Seriously.... why doesn't Canon Hire Alex and his team.... Way back when I was done with a 350d and kit lens, I was not system dependant... I could have gone Nikon or Canon... ML brought me to the Canon camp. How many 5D2 users have stayed with Canon due to ML... it's amazing how ML has helped Canon.


+1 here. ML made me choice Canon. I have supported ML for a while and glad I did that.


----------



## Meatball_Sub (Jul 17, 2013)

ehouli said:


> [if This claim made by ML it's doable and won't damage anything in the cameras in the future, makes me wonder if Canon is doing only half the work or if they are not investing in the best people.



My guess is neither: I think they want people who would like these capabilities to spring for their higher end, video-centric cameras instead of buying a much cheaper DSLR.

Awesome work, Magic Lantern Team.


----------



## M.ST (Jul 17, 2013)

Great job ML. 

But it´s a shame that Canon is not able to improve their products.


----------



## verysimplejason (Jul 17, 2013)

I hope it's doable for the 6D... It'll be awesome. Canon if they can't hire the ML team should donate a lot to ML team.


----------



## amejat (Jul 17, 2013)

If you really want to have 14 stops of DR... just buy a D800.


----------



## Skulker (Jul 17, 2013)

M.ST said:


> Great job ML.
> 
> But it´s a shame that Canon is not able to improve their products.



Because of course they have never improved their products. : there is no improvement ever in any product they produce.


----------



## verysimplejason (Jul 17, 2013)

amejat said:


> If you really want to have 14 stops of DR... just buy a D800.



Yup. Also buy some expensive Nikon lenses to take advantage of D800, and get some harddisks also. While you're at it, you may want to upgrade your desktop/laptops also. If you're doing video, get ready for some very good amount of Moire. Sounds great...


----------



## Zv (Jul 17, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> amejat said:
> 
> 
> > If you really want to have 14 stops of DR... just buy a D800.
> ...



;D I like the "just get a D800" like it's no big deal. Yeah forget that Toyota corolla just get a Lambo!


----------



## wockawocka (Jul 17, 2013)

amejat said:


> If you really want to have 14 stops of DR... just buy a D800.



Not with those tiny pixels, thank you. I edited 1500 images from one the other day and I wasn't impressed.


----------



## photonius (Jul 17, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14007\"></glusone></div><div style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a href=\"https://twitter.com/share\" class=\"twitter-share-button\" data-count=\"vertical\" data-url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14007\">Tweet</a></div>
> <p><strong>From Magic Lantern
> 
> 
> ...



What nobody seems to comment upon is what this could imply for future products from Canon.
First, even in existing 8 channel bodies (7D, 5DIII), Canon already implemented the possibility to have two different exposures in separate columns.

Now, we know that Canon just released a new sensor in the 70D, with two photosites under each pixel. And
for the Phase-detect on Sensor, they can read each one separately.

So, everything seems to be in place that for a new 7D II Canon could implement this technology to increase the dynamic range of their camera, i.e. expose one half site with one ISO, and the other with a higher ISO - then combine the information. Because all this happens under one microlens, all the subsequent algorithms (demosaicism etc.) work just as before, and don't need to be implement de novo as for this Magic lantern solution.
Ergo, it should be possible to get something like a 14 stop DN camera from Canon. I hope they get their algorithms done to implement this, the hardware seems to have the potential to do it.

As pointed out, these ideas are not new, having been around for more than a decade, see page 15 ff.
http://www-isl.stanford.edu/~abbas/group/papers_and_pub/chiao_thesis.pdf


----------



## verysimplejason (Jul 17, 2013)

It seems that apart from 5D Mark III and 7D, we've got another candidate.

http://www.canon.co.uk/Images/EOS_70D_Tech_Explained-v1_0_tcm14-1066504.pdf

"The EOS 70D features a new 20.2 MP APS-C CMOS sensor that provides a balance of 
increased resolution and low noise performance. This enables the capture of the widest 
range of scenes and high-resolution prints, with low-noise images and a wide native 
ISO speed range of 100–12800 that is expandable to 25600. A high-speed 14-bit signal 
conversion combines with Canon’s DIGIC 5+ image processor for smooth tonal 
gradations and natural colours. An *eight-channel read-out* also supports high speed 
shooting of up to seven frames per second (fps) at full resolution. "

September isn't too far, isn't it?


----------



## infared (Jul 17, 2013)

AAPhotog said:


> moogul said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds interesting. But I have a dumb question (never used ML before). Where is the link to the actual firmware file for the DR "upgrade"?
> ...




OK..I am just a photographer ...not a code writer. Is this DR revelation something that the average person can safely load onto their $3500 camera body without damaging it...or is this something that is proposed for a future release of Magic Latern that we all can use?


----------



## GDub (Jul 17, 2013)

infared said:


> AAPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > moogul said:
> ...



The short answer is that if you don't know what you're doing you should wait until the DR feature is built into a stable ML release. Also note that the current "alpha" release for the 5D Mark III requires the older 1.1.3 firmware. For myself, I WILL NOT be loading ML into my Mark III until they release an alpha version that works with the current firmware, but I'm really looking forward to that day! Why? Because I've been running the stable version on my T2i for quite a while now and it has some GREAT features--for video and stills.

FTR, I'll quote myself here from my earlier answer to your question...

The Magic Lantern forum thread discussing this (*read it carefully*):

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=7139.0


----------



## clicstudio (Jul 17, 2013)

Dynamic range is Probably more Important to me than noise reduction or pixel count.
I think the way to do this is to split the sensor into highlights and shadows...
I rather have an 8mp 16-stop split sensor, than a 16mp one with less DR.
It can be done.
It is interesting that most HDR cameras take 3 exposures but nobody thought about changing the ISO Instead. 
I believe in pushing things to the limit and opening up the possibilities of a device...
Like my jailbroken iPhone 5. Which is amazingly more useful and fun than the limited iOS from apple.


Kudos to magic lantern!
Keep up the great work!


----------



## rpiotr01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Pretty neat that they're working on it, and will check it out further once a final version is out and long time testing has run its course. I'll be a beta tester for LR 5 but not something that can potentially fry my sensor...


----------



## infared (Jul 17, 2013)

GDub said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > AAPhotog said:
> ...



GD thanks for the explanation. That clears up a lot of confusion for this non-programmer still photographer.
I will not be attempting this unless it is included in an updated ML release that is compatible with current 5DMarkIII firmware.


----------



## michi (Jul 17, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> *This is nothing real new and have been discussed at DPR years ago.*
> 
> This document presents a sensor scanning trick that results in significant dynamic range im- provements, at the cost of vertical image resolution and aliasing, especially in highlights and shadows. The ISO (analog amplification) is alternated for every two scanlines, between two user-defined values (say ISO 100/1600), so half of the image is exposed for highlights and the other half is exposed for shadows.



Not sure what point you are trying to make. This feature hasn't been implemented yet. I would say that alone is new and newsworthy. A document released years ago doesn't do us photographers in the field any good...


----------



## RGF (Jul 17, 2013)

Skulker said:


> M.ST said:
> 
> 
> > Great job ML.
> ...



This is a really ground breaking innovation. Does not happen often. I am not surprised that an outsider created it; they need to do something different to make a living. Canon can continue with incremental improvements and be dumb, fat, and happy :


----------



## Quasimodo (Jul 17, 2013)

clicstudio said:


> Dynamic range is Probably more Important to me than noise reduction or pixel count.
> I think the way to do this is to split the sensor into highlights and shadows...
> I rather have an 8mp 16-stop split sensor, than a 16mp one with less DR.
> It can be done.
> ...



Just curious since I have a iPhone 5. How to jailbreak it, and what is the added benefits?


----------



## poias (Jul 17, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> clicstudio said:
> 
> 
> > Dynamic range is Probably more Important to me than noise reduction or pixel count.
> ...



D800/E is already 36Mp with 14.5 stop DR... without the ISO tricks


----------



## Famateur (Jul 18, 2013)

michi said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > *This is nothing real new and have been discussed at DPR years ago.*
> ...



LOL...yeah. We've known about cold fusion on paper for a long time. When some physicists finally pull it off? 

"Meh...we've known about that for decades." :

A project like Magic Lantern is a great example of enthusiasts making a good thing even better -- for the sake of making it better. I applaud the work they're doing. They're like hot-rodders trying to squeeze every ounce of torque and horsepower out of the engine they've got...and then letting everyone drive it.


----------



## AAPhotog (Jul 18, 2013)

poias said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > clicstudio said:
> ...


But I don't own a D800, so I couldn't care less.
What does the oh so precious d800 have to do with this topic again? Maybe 14.5 stops and 46megapixels aren't the ONLY things we'd like in a camera.


----------



## jrista (Jul 18, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > amejat said:
> ...



I'm sorry, but that is a bold faced lie! The D800 has a full well capacity of 44k, while the 1D X has a full well capacity of 90k. That is a TWO FOLD difference between the two, bub!


----------



## jrista (Jul 18, 2013)

poias said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > clicstudio said:
> ...



Again, more misinformation. The D800 has 13.2 stops of *native* dynamic range (the dynamic range at it's full resolution). It is only able to achieve 14.3 stops (not 14.5) when downscaling from 36.3mp to 8mp (an overall LOSS in detail of over 200%!!!)

This is why DXO's reports are so misleading. From a NATIVE CAPABILITY standpoint, the D800 is a 13.2 stop camera. Depending on how much you downscale, you might gain DR via a reduction in noise, at the cost of original detail. In other words, it is impossible to get 14.3 stops of DR at the native resolution of 7360 x 4912 pixels. Given that when editing a RAW photo, you ALWAYS edit at full resolution (i.e. the extreme shadow pushing we see in something like Lightroom), it is only valid to say that the D800 is a 13 stop camera, not a 14 stop camera. 

In that respect....if ML has actually managed to extract the full 14 stops of dynamic range from the 5D III and 7D (which, given that they are effectively doing two-frame HDR, I believe is highly likely...you have well more than 14 stops of original data to work with, and are only limited by the bit depth of the ADC), that means a 5D III with ML is actually capable of almost a stop more DR than the D800...at a lower native resolution.


----------



## hambergler (Jul 18, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> clicstudio said:
> 
> 
> > Dynamic range is Probably more Important to me than noise reduction or pixel count.
> ...



Not everyone can switch systems and if you do any significant video work whatsoever than 5DIII is several orders of magnitude better than the D800.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 18, 2013)

Fyi, don't know if this has been mentioned here: unlike other ml features this will *not* be ported to other cameras since only 5d3/7d have the required readout (for details see the pdf linked in the ml thread) :-\


----------



## verysimplejason (Jul 18, 2013)

michi said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > *This is nothing real new and have been discussed at DPR years ago.*
> ...



+1. Theory is far from reality. Reality is the ML team is worthy the accolade their getting. I hope Canon takes a hint from this and apply it in a better way in the next generation of sensors.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 18, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> why not 36Mp and the best DR ?



You seem to be lost. This is a CANON forum.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 18, 2013)

Here's hoping the ML team can get a final, stable release working on the 7D given the difficulties of dual processors.

I imagine both my 7D and my M will have ML on them sooner or later. DR gains on the 7D; focus peaking and intervalometer on the M. Canon should donate a lot of money to the ML team.


----------



## Skulker (Jul 18, 2013)

michi said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > *This is nothing real new and have been discussed at DPR years ago.*
> ...



It's typical of him, just any chance to be negative and he's in there. He seems to think everyone should convert go a d800 and can't or won't see the advantages of anything with canon written on it.


----------



## BozillaNZ (Jul 18, 2013)

It's good for video where output resolution will always be less than sensor's native resolution.

However for still photographs, you don't lose 2x the vertical resolution, you lose more. Since according to the technical document, it uses ISO 100 for sensor line 1,2, then ISO 1600 for line 3,4, and alternating like that.

It is how the hardware is wired up, two rows for each ADC/AMP. This has the effect of generating worse moire and alias on scenes with high frequency data since the spatial continuity is essential 1/4 that of original resolution.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2013)

jrista said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > why not, *d800 has the same FWC as 1dx* but 36 Mp
> ...


Indeed. But let's not allow facts get in the way of the same restated DRivel from the DRoll DRones who DRool over DR. :



poias said:


> D800/E is already 36Mp with 14.5 stop DR... without the ISO tricks


You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: DxOMark's Scores are useless, biased Bovine Scat.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Full well capacity. You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

From the whole sensor area? Tell me...what is a 'well' in FWC? How does the 'whole sensor area' affect the number of electons a well can hold?

You stated, "d800 has the same FWC as 1dx." Now you're stating, "from the whole sensor area you get exactly the same FWC from 1dx and d800." *I was beginning to think you understood this stuff. I was wrong.* See...unlike some, I can admit it. :


----------



## jrista (Jul 18, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Full *Well* Capacity has to do with the physical pixel, nothing else. There is no "whole sensor area" when talking about FWC. Simply put, the maximum charge accumulation possible in the photodiode of each D800 pixel is 44972e-, while for each 1D X pixel it is 90367e-. There is no changing that, it is a fixed attribute of the *hardware.* If you downsample a digital image in post, you are normalizing noise across digital pixels, not physical pixels, and that is an entirely different process. Your numeric range is the same...either 8 bits or 16 bits, regardless of whether you have a D800 or 1D X, and for any levels above the noise threshold on the 1D X, the gains would be the same as for the D800. The primary gain with the D800 has to do with shadow levels, where you have more usable detail strait out of the camera than with the 1D X (however that still has nothing to do with FWC).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Whats matter is how many electrons can be hold before saturation/read out = and it is the the same from the two.



Mikael, does the D800 have the same FWC as the 1D X?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> multiply d800 pixels with FWC and you get the same as 1dx
> 
> (a new question to discuss?)
> then please keep your self to the subject, so it not will be a new head room or BSI/FSI discussion



Really? 1 pixel = 1 well. 1 well holds a given number of electrons. That number is different between the D800 and the 1D X. If you multiply the number of electrons that fill one well by the number of wells, you're not talking about FWC any more.

You want to discuss something else? You were the first to bring up FWC in this thread. Now that you've shown you don't understand the concept of FWC, by all means, let's move on. Even if you won't, I will. It's just not worth trying to explain to someone who refuses to admit when they're obviously wrong about a simple fact. :


----------



## jrista (Jul 18, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> multiply d800 pixels with FWC and you get the same as 1dx
> 
> (a new question to discuss?)
> then please keep your self to the subject, so it not will be a new head room or BSI/FSI discussion



There is no such thing as multiple pixel FWC. Each pixel is independent, and is read out independently. Full _*Well *_Capacity is a hardware trait...image size normalization has nothing to do with it. Once the analog signal (as a series of signal values of electric charge) is converted into a digital image (which compresses or expands the analog signal into a fixed digital range...i.e. 10, 12, or 14 bits), FWC is no longer a valid term.


----------



## jrista (Jul 18, 2013)

And, back to our regularly scheduled programming:

How about those ML guys, eh!  Thanks to all the ML guys for figuring this out and giving us an additional option, for those who find the need for it.


----------



## tron (Jul 18, 2013)

jrista said:


> And, back to our regularly scheduled programming:
> 
> How about those ML guys, eh!  Thanks to all the ML guys for figuring this out and giving us an additional option, for those who find the need for it.


+1 FINALLY ON TOPIC


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 18, 2013)

jrista said:


> And, back to our regularly scheduled programming:
> 
> How about those ML guys, eh!  Thanks to all the ML guys for figuring this out and giving us an additional option, for those who find the need for it.



++


----------



## ishdakuteb (Jul 18, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> why not 36Mp and the best DR ?



your imges look best with a camera that you think it is the best? to me those, i have seen, are not.



poias said:


> D800/E is already 36Mp with 14.5 stop DR... without the ISO tricks



how do you know so sure that nikon does not do iso tricks? i am not so sure about this, but i saw "nikon iso less method" on the first line of implementation part.

//-------------------------

however, kudos to ML team about releasing this engineering test load even though i am not going to put it in my cameras since i do not have under exposed problems like ankorwatt and i am just a hobbyist...


----------



## jrista (Jul 18, 2013)

I would be curious to see how the ML DR trick works with a more advanced interpolation method. AHD, or Adaptive Homogeneity Directed, is a fairly standard approach, used by LR and Aperture, and is one of the main options in tools like RawThearapy and DarkTable (maybe the default). I wasn't certain, from the PDF, if Alex said he was actually using AHD, or if he was using just the basic interpolation that interpolates all four pixels for each 2x2 intersection.

The reason I'm curious is he did note that cross-interpolating the ISO 100 pixels with the ISO 1600 pixels would be "bad". In any normal demosaicing algorithm, I think that will happen anyway. I know that AHD tries to utilize as much pixel information as it can for each output pixel, so I suspect that if anyone uses this feature in the next ML update, if cross-interpolating 100 with 1600 data produces bad results with AHD...I wonder how anyone will actually be able to use such RAW images if they use Lightroom or Aperture.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 18, 2013)

jrista said:


> I would be curious to see how the ML DR trick works with a more advanced interpolation method. AHD, or Adaptive Homogeneity Directed, is a fairly standard approach, used by LR and Aperture, and is one of the main options in tools like RawThearapy and DarkTable (maybe the default). I wasn't certain, from the PDF, if Alex said he was actually using AHD, or if he was using just the basic interpolation that interpolates all four pixels for each 2x2 intersection.
> 
> The reason I'm curious is he did note that cross-interpolating the ISO 100 pixels with the ISO 1600 pixels would be "bad". In any normal demosaicing algorithm, I think that will happen anyway. I know that AHD tries to utilize as much pixel information as it can for each output pixel, so I suspect that if anyone uses this feature in the next ML update, if cross-interpolating 100 with 1600 data produces bad results with AHD...I wonder how anyone will actually be able to use such RAW images if they use Lightroom or Aperture.



Hmmm...if I'm reading the PDF right, he's using a basic linear algorithm. It looks like he did some additional work, but I don't think it's using one of the advanced interpolation methods. Want to implement one?


----------



## lopicma (Jul 18, 2013)

This is some interesting new on two cameras that are years apart in construction.

Didn't the 7D share the same "chip" as the 60D and 350D? ...or am I confusing the "chip" with the "sensor"?


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 18, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



Hmmmmh - if I understand the document you provided right: Sony sensors make three images of different exposures and combine them afterwards. This is possible by a high speed readout (e.g. 75 images per second) and resulting in 25 images per second of high DR images. I think this is sth. like HDR imageing. I don't think that the D800 does sth. like this - it is a little bit different from the surveillance cams described in the document.

Perhaps Canon has integrated it's dual amp but hasn't tried to use it due to patents of Sony ... so it might be possible that Sony uses the alternating ISO readout. The convergence of DR @ high ISOs supports that idea: There is only one amplifier setting available to gain acceptable images so the readout is a "classic" readout with just one amp setting.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 18, 2013)

lopicma said:


> This is some interesting new on two cameras that are years apart in construction.
> 
> Didn't the 7D share the same "chip" as the 60D and 350D? ...or am I confusing the "chip" with the "sensor"?



7D has the same sensor as the 60D, but it has 2 of these ADC chips for faster readout (and faster FPS) rather than 1 like pretty much the rest of the Canon lineup has. Excepting the 1DX, they generally aren't messing around with that or the Cinema line.

EDIT: Sorry, I was thinking of the other, magic lantern dual-iso thread. The 7D has basically the same sensor as the 60D, however it has a dual DIGIC-4 processor chips, while the 60D has a single DIGIC-4 processor.

It's a shame, but Canon would likely dogpile them with lawyers if they did. In fact, I think I remember hearing Canon basically making that statement. I could be wrong about that though.


----------



## Krob78 (Jul 19, 2013)

Hey Neuro, I was wondering if you use or have tried ML on your 7d? If so, what did you think of it? Thanks!



neuroanatomist said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 19, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> Hey Neuro, I was wondering if you use or have tried ML on your 7d? If so, what did you think of it? Thanks!



Sorry, never tried it. I would consider it for my EOS M.


----------



## Krob78 (Jul 19, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Krob78 said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Neuro, I was wondering if you use or have tried ML on your 7d? If so, what did you think of it? Thanks!
> ...


Considered it for my 7d but could never force myself to actually try it... just some trepidation there. Likewise, I could be a candidate for it on my EOS M... Thank you!


----------



## risc32 (Jul 19, 2013)

i just popped in to see how this was going, and from what i can see the most entertaining aspect of this thread are the sweet "princess bride" lines. neuro, you are the man.


----------



## jrista (Jul 19, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



First, that is an application of Exmor for surveillance cameras, and I do not believe the technique applies for stills photography. The frame rate is a fixed 60fps, which would normally utilize a single long exposure that, depending on the metering, will either underexpose severely to avoid clipping highlights, or overexpose severely in order to avoid blocking shadows. Sony breaks that 1/60th of a second up into medium, short, and very short exposure times which are then HDR blended by hardware, and each single HDR frame stored as a normal video frame. Note, that this only really works when you know your fixed frame interval, and assuming you are able to expose for a long enough time (i.e. it wouldn't work if you needed like 1/320th of a second shutter or something along those lines.)

That is not what the Exmor sensor in the D800 does. The D800 has only a single stage of digital CDS and the on-die column parallel ADC. The use of those two things, while concurrently locating PLL and other high frequency components off in a separate region of the sensor die (to avoid allowing them to introduce noise during ADC), is how Sony and the D800 achieve low read noise for stills.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Jul 19, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



well, like i have said that i do care about technique than camera specs. how about your camera techniques? crap is what i think...


----------



## Famateur (Jul 19, 2013)

risc32 said:


> i just popped in to see how this was going, and from what i can see the most entertaining aspect of this thread are the sweet "princess bride" lines. neuro, you are the man.



Agreed!


----------



## fman (Jul 19, 2013)

Excellent (and very inventive) idea.
Unfortunately the resolution probably will be somewhat reduced, so real improvement should rather come from the sensor.
I hope that Canon will improve the sensor readout noise in future sensors so that there is no need for SW tricks.
Even the full well capacity is bigger for Canon sensors (due to bigger pixels) the readout noise is so high that in case of low ISO it cancels all the advantages of big pixels and limits the dynamic range.


----------



## Krob78 (Jul 20, 2013)

fman said:


> Excellent (and very inventive) idea.
> Unfortunately the resolution probably will be somewhat reduced, so real improvement should rather come from the sensor.
> I hope that Canon will improve the sensor readout noise in future sensors so that there is no need for SW tricks.
> Even the full well capacity is bigger for Canon sensors (due to bigger pixels) the readout noise is so high that in case of low ISO it cancels all the advantages of big pixels and limits the dynamic range.





> I hope that Canon will improve the sensor readout noise in future sensors so that there is no need for SW tricks


Need the SW tricks or not, I can only imagine that the software junkies will always pursue improvement and "tricks"...


----------



## rpt (Jul 20, 2013)

Famateur said:


> risc32 said:
> 
> 
> > i just popped in to see how this was going, and from what i can see the most entertaining aspect of this thread are the sweet "princess bride" lines. neuro, you are the man.
> ...


neuro is the man. As are so many others on this forum.

Why am I on this thread? Never mind!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 23, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> keep your self to the subject and look at the specs



Ok. When I look at the 5DIII vs. the D800, I see a faster frame rate, better AF, better ergonomics and UI, much better Live View, and compatibility with better lenses (including those from Nikon, if one is willing to control them manually). Oh, and a bit less DR. Therefore, overall I see a better *camera* in the 5DIII. But then again, when I look at the specs, I'm not DRunk on DR and wearing DxOMark blinDRs.


----------



## dlleno (Jul 23, 2013)

Lol drunk on DR that's classic!


----------



## CarlTN (Jul 23, 2013)

How come nobody else is hacking cameras? Why is it always magic lantern?


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 23, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> How come nobody else is hacking cameras? Why is it always magic lantern?



Why duplicate what someone else has already done? Join in and work on something that interests you or make an existing feature work better.

Now, occasionally it can make sense to have multiple projects that put out stuff that fundamentally does the same thing, but has a different interface or way of operating that enough other people find useful. But when it comes to cameras, something that's quite difficult to work on and are relatively expensive (mostly) to get even 1 to develop for, it makes a lot of sense to only have 1 main project and maybe if you really need something special just for you, a branch that you keep up to date with the mainline.


----------



## jrista (Jul 23, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > How come nobody else is hacking cameras? Why is it always magic lantern?
> ...



Well...duplication happens all the time!  Just look at the OSS community...throughout its history, it's been riddled with people starting projects that have already been done, because someone thinks they can do better. In one sense, that's a great thing...you often do get better products than whatever may have come before. On the other hand...good projects that came before sometimes don't get the help or talent they need to become even better... Guess its one of those unwinnable scenarios...you can't have both...new projects that are better or existing projects that are the best they can possibly be...



Drizzt321 said:


> Now, occasionally it can make sense to have multiple projects that put out stuff that fundamentally does the same thing, but has a different interface or way of operating that enough other people find useful. But when it comes to cameras, something that's quite difficult to work on and are relatively expensive (mostly) to get even 1 to develop for, it makes a lot of sense to only have 1 main project and maybe if you really need something special just for you, a branch that you keep up to date with the mainline.



I think you nailed it here...the cost of purchasing cameras in order to have the hardware to test with is probably the major barrier to entry. The good thing is that ML is a great product, and they are likely to attract any other talent willing to contribute, making it that much better in the long run.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 23, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



I think you're talking about workflow, not ergonomics. The ergonomics of the camera don't change appreciably (other than menu settings to enable/disable it), but the workflow after you download it changes for better or worse.


----------



## poias (Jul 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Oh, and a bit less DR. Therefore, overall I see a better *camera* in the 5DIII.



2.5 stops of less DR is "a bit less"? And on top of amazing DR, you get more than 50% detail with D800. I know you have to make excuses but this is just sad.


----------



## Skulker (Jul 23, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> If Canon has a 75Mp camera there will be about one stop more DR compared to the low res cameras as 1dx, 5dmk3
> 
> Canon's problems with DR is the pixel DR, so the only way to get more DR (if they not have changed the read out in the new 75mp sensor) is to have more pixels.



At least even you put some "if"s into your total guesses that you are making without any knowledge of the camera you now denigrate in typical ankorwatt fashion.

I find it difficult to believe that you really think you know what is in a camera that no one who has seen it is giving any technical details about. If it even exists . Surely even you are not that misguided.


----------



## jrista (Jul 23, 2013)

Skulker said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon has a 75Mp camera there will be about one stop more DR compared to the low res cameras as 1dx, 5dmk3
> ...



Surely!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 23, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



Only matters if there are more than 11 stops of DR in your scene. 

Regardless, every "feature" you listed derives from the sensor. You and the others who DRone on about DR and DRag every thread down into the dolDRums seem unable to grasp the fact that there is more to a camera than the sensor inside of it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 23, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> You Neuro said, I thought my camera 5dmk3 had good AF until I got my 1DX. (I can find the exact text somewhere)
> This is the big problem here , several of you lacks comparisons between system but you declare always Canon as better, regardless it is lenses or camera bodies.



Yes, please find the exact text. I have never owned a 5DIII, so it seems pretty unliklely that I made such a statement. I made such a statement concerning the 7D, so I believe your faulty memory is the big problem here.

Perseverating on one single aspect of _camera_ performance is another problem here. We're discussing photography. There are breathtaking, inspiring photographs with 6 stops of DR...just as there are crappy, boring photographs with 13.2 stops of DR (many of them right here on these forums, imagine that : ). While DR can easily be quantified, there's a lot more to making a picture. But go ahead and DRone on...who knows, maybe one day you'll get as tired of writing it as the rest of us are of reading it (other DR addicts notwithstanding).


----------



## shulya (Jul 23, 2013)

Can moderator please get rid of the crap about Canon vs D800.. 
Somebody please post some image results before and after the firmware hack, is it worth installing it and what are the visible drawbacks?


----------



## jrista (Jul 23, 2013)

shulya said:


> Can moderator please get rid of the crap about Canon vs D800..
> Somebody please post some image results before and after the firmware hack, is it worth installing it and what are the visible drawbacks?



Wow, first post and your asking mods to delete content?

As for comparisons, the ML team provided that in their PDF document that explains how they did what they did. There is a batman comparison and a juice carton comparison, both of which seem to demonstrate the benefits quite well.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 23, 2013)

shulya said:


> Can moderator please get rid of the crap about Canon vs D800..



Please don't, I'm very grateful the mods in this forum don't "clean up" threads according to their perception of the topic, elsewhere I find this is ultra-annoying. Even with the good ok' Karma gone, CR posters seem to be able to steer a thread in meaningful bounds, or abandon it if it degrades to silliness after a long time which is also ok.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 23, 2013)

shulya said:


> Can moderator please get rid of the crap about Canon vs D800..



If they did that, the number of posts on this forum would be cut in half.


----------



## Zv (Jul 23, 2013)

I swear every thread turns into the same thing!

What exactly is ankorwatt trying to say? That we should all immediately go out and buy a D800? While we're at it should we all have the same hairstyles and wear the same clothes? 

Haven't you heard of choice? We choose to shoot Canon because we like it. 

Now, do you actually take any pictures with the D800 or what? Can you show us an example of when you needed the extra 2 or 3 stops? No really, I want to see. I have no clue what it looks like. I thought shadows were meant to be black, doesn't it look fake if they're not?


----------



## rpt (Jul 23, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > I swear every thread turns into the same thing!
> ...


Mikael, are you a photographer? 

If yes, more pictures and less talk. And by pictures I mean other things than DRab stuff. I mean artistically or technically great stuff.

If no, its ok. I mean just talk from you is ok. I'll understand.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 23, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> *WHY do YOU think Magic Lantern are trying to squeeze out a larger dynamic range*



Because they're hackers (see original definition), it's there, and because they can. Side benefits are it's a crazy idea, but it can work and likely provide some practical benefits to some photographers. But mostly because it's there.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 23, 2013)

Zv said:


> Can you show us an example of when you needed the extra 2 or 3 stops? No really, I want to see. I have no clue what it looks like.



Constantly promoting specific Nikon products in a Canon forum might not be necessary, but I don't get the recent witchhunt for people wishing for more dynamic range ... of course it's useful in high contrast situations, even though even 2-3 stops more isn't enough to pull back all clipped highlights, but it sure would help. 

Attached is some shot I recently wished for more dynamic range as it was a noon shot with clipped whites.



Zv said:


> I thought shadows were meant to be black, doesn't it look fake if they're not?



If you really don't know the problem you're lucky and seem to be shooting completely different stuff to what I do. There's a difference between clipped shadows because of limited dr and deep shadows where *you* want them in postprocessing - or you should be happy with a mobile phone and half the dr of a current dslr because then images are destined to look natural, aren't they? No, of course not, +100 contrast is as unnatural as raising shadows until there is the distinct fake "hdr" look.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 23, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



You are discussing 14 stops of DR. You seem incapable of discussing anything else.

Mikael, where's the exact text you told us you'd provide? 

What it means is that you quoted me and even offered to provide the exact text, but you were wrong. Why can't you just admit that? 



Marsu42 said:


> Constantly promoting specific Nikon products in a Canon forum might not be necessary, but I don't get the recent witchhunt for people wishing for more dynamic range ... of course it's useful in high contrast situations, even though even 2-3 stops more isn't enough to pull back all clipped highlights, but it sure would help.



That's not really the issue...I don't think anyone here believes that more DR is a bad thing. The issue is really this:

_Q: Which has better DR, the 5DIII or the D800?
A: The D800 has better DR, Canon's sensor sucks.

Q: Which allows better shadow recovery, the 5DIII or the D800?
A: The D800 has better DR, Canon's sensor sucks.

Q: How can I improve this bird picture?
A: The D800 has better DR, Canon's sensor sucks.

Q: What time is it in Stockholm?
A: The D800 has better DR, Canon's sensor sucks._


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 23, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



I'm trying to read your response and make some sense of it, but I'm failing to extract real, meaningful content. I'm particularly confused about bringing of flare from lenses. What does it put an end to? You're leaving me hanging here. It's like Harry Potter And the Deathly Hallows Part 1. Why do I have to wait so long for Part 2?!?


----------



## CarlTN (Jul 23, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > How come nobody else is hacking cameras? Why is it always magic lantern?
> ...



Or could it be that no one else wants to open themselves up to liability?


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 23, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



Canon has (inofficially) conveyed that they have no problem with ml as long as they leave the 1d series alone.

Btw there are other projects adding custom fw to the cameras like 400plus, but for the newer models they joined up for ml. The reason is that the main work is not the actual coding, but the reverse engineering of Canon's digic and DryOS software, both undocumented (thanks, Canon).

It doesn't make sense duplicating all this, and the ml software framework is very mature and easy to use to add something to it - I often do if I want my camera to do some convenient things like auto-switching to fast drive on bracketing or try to stick to max. x-sync w/o risk of severe overexposure like the Canon fw does.


----------



## rpt (Jul 23, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...


Very welcome to ask the company I work for and persons I work with about my photographs


----------



## kaihp (Jul 24, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Btw there are other projects adding custom fw to the cameras like 400plus, but for the newer models they joined up for ml. The reason is that the main work is not the actual coding, but the reverse engineering of Canon's digic and DryOS software, both undocumented (thanks, Canon).



Picking nits: No, the DryOS is most likely very well documented. But that documentation is proprietary and confidential inside Canon.


----------



## Zv (Jul 24, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > I swear every thread turns into the same thing!
> ...



So, instead of providing an image to clarify you ask some vague question about MLs motives. Nice. I also couldn't care less where you work. I asked for an image that you took that needed 13-14 stops of DR. Quite frankly I am dissapointed. What if I was actually someone who cared? You let me down man!


----------



## GDub (Jul 24, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> *WHY do YOU think Magic Lantern are trying to squeeze out a larger dynamic range*



Because they can! Rock on ML!


----------



## Skulker (Jul 24, 2013)

Zv said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



You're not the only one disappointed with him. He just likes to make silly statements like claiming that 3 stops extra is always useful. What daft rubbish. Clearly its not true.


----------



## jrista (Jul 24, 2013)

Skulker said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



I'd extend that to be "3 extra stops is always useful for every kind of photography or subject man has or ever will conceive of". ;P No one will dispute the notion that more DR is always useful for some kinds of photography. Mikael's issue is that he insists on pushing that point at every single opportunity, regardless of the circumstances.

It should also be pointed out that Canon sensors are actually capable of similar dynamic range to other sensors. The issue isn't actually Canon's sensors, the issue is really downstream sources of noise...the stuff inside their DIGIC chips. The banding noise is added later, after the sensor has been read, while the analog signal is converted to a digital signal. It is actually possible to reduce that banding with good tools. Nik Dfine 2 can do a moderately good job, Topaz DeNoise 5 can do a very good job. Even if you leave some banding behind in order to avoid softening detail, it is possible to recover a good stop or two of dynamic range, even from a crappy Canon sensor. Since photographic DR has a lot to do with the tolerances of the photographer, it's a difficult thing to nail down...but for those willing to spend a little time, a lot of DR can be recovered with Canon sensors (even without the ML hack.) That is another point that Mikael simply refuses to ever acknowledge when he brings up the D800 and its DR, but one that is rather important.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 24, 2013)

Oh look! ankorwatt is telling us again how all photographs ever taken across all time need more dynamic range then you get from a crappy Canon sensor. Because Nikon has more dynamic range. Like, a thousand stops more. Infinity+1.

Glad I didn't miss that. I needed my daily reminder.


----------



## tron (Jul 24, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Q: What time is it in Stockholm?
> A: The D800 has better DR, Canon's sensor sucks.[/i]


Now that caught me off guard and made me burst into laughing ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Krob78 (Jul 24, 2013)

GDub said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > *WHY do YOU think Magic Lantern are trying to squeeze out a larger dynamic range*
> ...


That and because anything better would be better... Did I just say that??


----------



## ishdakuteb (Jul 25, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Oh look! ankorwatt is telling us again how all photographs ever taken across all time need more dynamic range then you get from a crappy Canon sensor. Because Nikon has more dynamic range. Like, a thousand stops more. Infinity+1.
> ...



you are having both systems, and with your more than 30 years of experience... but still shoot like crap. i CERTAINLY suggest you to get POINT AND SHOOT camera to save money ;D

"like cars, there are better motors"... true... let say that you are giving a lamborghini to a normal person and a bmw to a real racer to race on public highway... who win? see how stup*d your statement is 

note: this is a message from newbie... i think you DO HAVE PROBLEMS WITH ADMITTING YOUR CRAPPY SHOTS... you talk a lot but your skills are s*ck...


----------



## J.R. (Jul 25, 2013)

More belaboring ... more childish behavior. I've come to expect that though! 

I just wish the mods made the "ignore" module of the forum a bit better.


----------



## MarcPool (Jul 25, 2013)

J.R. said:


> More belaboring ... more childish behavior. I've come to expect that though!
> 
> I just wish the mods made the "ignore" module of the forum a bit better.


 +1000


----------



## ishdakuteb (Jul 25, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> *If you have nothing new to offer!*
> 
> I have had my own company since 1984
> I think I have both the experience and knowledge so it is enough
> ...



good for you and since you are travel a lot for work, especially in U.S. also, i personally challenge you on photography techniques (a hobbyist who do not get paid with less than 2 years of experience in using slr v.s. a person get paid with almost 30 years of experience in slr)

with your experience, i expect you were shooting 35mm film a lot and your exposure must be greater than mine (yeah yeahh... just a thought only and i bet you wish). to be fair, i will cover my LCD VIEW with black tape, so yours during shoot out with different lightings... including using flash (direct, bounce, on camera)... and see who get better images... i am PRETTY SURE that i am not better than anyone in this forum but YOU, ANKORWATT)

getting paid does not you are taking good images... do not believe it, send me your 5 best images... i will ask a well known pro to critique your image... is that fair....

LET ME KNOW IF YOU TAKE THE CHALLENGE (thought that i have requested this for almost a year)


----------



## J.R. (Jul 25, 2013)

ishdakuteb said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > *If you have nothing new to offer!*
> ...



You should know a lost cause when you see one!


----------



## ishdakuteb (Jul 25, 2013)

J.R. said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



affaid that i am loosing for him... no, i will not since i have benefit of getting correct exposure... one of which i have been learning and analyzing non-stop in the last 2 years (almost) after getting off from work, including weekend...


----------



## Hill Benson (Aug 31, 2013)

Hey everyone.

I wanted to ask a newbie question about this new Magic Lantern Developed "DUAL ISO" tech.

Using this setting for stills, does it take more than one exposure and then combine them (like HDR) or does it only require one actuation of the shutter?


----------



## tron (Aug 31, 2013)

It requires ONE actuation only. The resultant .CR2 file is processed via a program named cr2hdr.exe and produces a DNG file.


----------



## Hill Benson (Aug 31, 2013)

tron said:


> It requires ONE actuation only. The resultant .CR2 file is processed via a program named cr2hdr.exe and produces a DNG file.



thanks for the reply Tron!

That is some pretty amazing technology then. As a stills shooter with a 5DIII it's only getting harder to resist trying ML now.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 31, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> *If you have nothing new to offer!*
> 
> I have had my own company since 1984
> I think I have both the experience and knowledge so it is enough
> ...



Actually, I don't believe this. A casual search for Mikael Risedal comes up with nothing but page after page after page of meaningless noise comparisons between Canon and Nikon. 

This guy is blinded by his total obsession with SNR. His only view of a photographic image is how much noise is hidden under the surface, and how much you can pull and push the data from that image in post before it cracks. He has no artistic interest in photography what so ever, and as such I very much doubt he ever had much to do with film.


----------



## Kernuak (Aug 31, 2013)

jrista said:


> I'd extend that to be "3 extra stops is always useful for every kind of photography or subject man has or ever will conceive of". ;P No one will dispute the notion that more DR is always useful for some kinds of photography. Mikael's issue is that he insists on pushing that point at every single opportunity, regardless of the circumstances.



Actually, while I concede it is sometimes useful, I certainly wouldn't agree that it is always useful. Sometimes the blown highlights or deep shadows are necesary for the look or feel the photographer is trying to portray. It depends whether you want a text book image or a piece of art.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 31, 2013)

Kernuak said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I'd extend that to be "3 extra stops is always useful for every kind of photography or subject man has or ever will conceive of". ;P No one will dispute the notion that more DR is always useful for some kinds of photography. Mikael's issue is that he insists on pushing that point at every single opportunity, regardless of the circumstances.
> ...



You have made exactly the same point I made on another thread. I got a rude reply from Ankortwat telling me I didn't know what a tonal curve was for. No doubt you can expect the same. 

And all this despite the very visual fact you can see from our pictures it is quite clear we know how to pp, though perhaps not how to produce noise.


----------



## J.R. (Aug 31, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Kernuak said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Did you misspell temple guy's name wrong on purpose? ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Eldar (Aug 31, 2013)

If I have nuances in shadow areas that I don´t want to see, I´ll black them out during post processing. If I have nuances in highlight areas, which I want to be totally white, I make them white in post processing. 

If I would like to see details in shadow areas, but all I have is black, there is nothing I can do. if I want to see details in a highlight area, and all I have is white, there is nothing I can do. 

Of course I would like to have higher DR. I want as much as possible and I cannot see how any future sensor would be criticized for having too much DR.

ML, I cheer for you. Keep up the good work!


----------



## Kernuak (Aug 31, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Kernuak said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


I've had similar responses in the past, doesn't change my thinking though . I photograph how I want to (or at least try), not how someone else thinks I should, be that dynamic range, depth of field or anything else. I sometimes get criticism for not having enough depth of field (especially in macros), it doesn't change my thinking though. I'm trying to develop my own noticeable style, I can't do that by doing what everyone else does. Yes there are certain things I can do in PP, but every extra bit I need to do in PP, means just that little bit more time for each image, time I don't often have. Plus I'm a bit of a purist and like to get as much as I can in the shot at the time. It's a bit of a challenge to see hnow much of the effect I want I can get at the time of shooting. It isn't always possible, but the more I push boundaries, the more I learn as a photographer and artist.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 31, 2013)

Fyi: This Magic Lantern dual_iso module doesn't only work on 5d3 anymore, but in the latest build on:

* 500d, 550d, 600d, 700d
* 50d, 60d
* 7d
* 5d2, 5d3

I just tried it on my 60d and I'd suggest for everyone to give it a try, there are hardly any artifacts at all in the latest release and it will make you realize how much of a difference it makes if 2-3 stops of dr are conjured out of thin air - I'm more convinced than ever that at least to me dr on my 60d's sensor is a limiting factor.


----------

