Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Nightshots

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    2,324

    Default Nightshots by Lumix LC33

    Not sure these nightshots are considered good as compared to cameras of same category! Is the Lumix LC33 night shot capability considered good or bad?

    Photos not enhanced. Tested 5 secs and 8 secs (zoom) shots only.

    5 secs: http://www.pbase.com/image/25545555/original

    8 secs: http://www.pbase.com/image/25545556/original
    Last edited by LifeWorld; 29th January 2004 at 07:15 AM.

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LifeWorld
    Not sure these nightshots are considered good as compared to cameras of same category! Is the Lumix LC33 night shot capability considered good or bad?

    Photos not enhanced. Tested 5 secs and 8 secs (zoom) shots only.

    5 secs: http://www.pbase.com/image/25545555/original

    8 secs: http://www.pbase.com/image/25545556/original
    Looks like it originated from the CCD's colour dynamics. Maybe it could be the ISO setting. Try to reshoot some night shots so that we can see if it's the trait of the CCD.

    Suggested settings:

    1. ISO 50 8s f/3.5
    2. ISO 100 4s f/3.5
    3. ISO 200 2s f3.5
    4. ISO 400 1s f3.5
    5. ISO 800 1/2s f3.5

    Repost and we will see again. Dun bother abother good exposure as long as it's not a white out or black out photo to make the test fairer and keep ALL other settings default. We'll see again.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    2,324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eyes
    Looks like it originated from the CCD's colour dynamics. Maybe it could be the ISO setting. Try to reshoot some night shots so that we can see if it's the trait of the CCD.

    Suggested settings:

    1. ISO 50 8s f/3.5
    2. ISO 100 4s f/3.5
    3. ISO 200 2s f3.5
    4. ISO 400 1s f3.5
    5. ISO 800 1/2s f3.5

    Repost and we will see again. Dun bother abother good exposure as long as it's not a white out or black out photo to make the test fairer and keep ALL other settings default. We'll see again.
    Here are the test shots:
    8secs nightshot
    4secs nightshot
    2secs nightshot
    1sec nightshot

    All nightshots

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LifeWorld

    I believe it's the CCD's restricted colour dynamism (ie. differentiation of the brightest - darkest pixel cluster within the same picture).
    Sometimes a restriction comes a preventive measure to lower the hot pixels and noise.
    Seriously I've not seen such strong manufacturer setting to produce these pics (the last time I saw these kinda pics was when I was using a ND filter)
    You may wanna send in your cam for a check - just in case it was a result of camera in hot car or shooting into the sun kinda thing.
    Very little anything can be done with that.

    Hope this helps.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eyes
    I believe it's the CCD's restricted colour dynamism (ie. differentiation of the brightest - darkest pixel cluster within the same picture).
    Sometimes a restriction comes a preventive measure to lower the hot pixels and noise.
    Seriously I've not seen such strong manufacturer setting to produce these pics (the last time I saw these kinda pics was when I was using a ND filter)
    You may wanna send in your cam for a check - just in case it was a result of camera in hot car or shooting into the sun kinda thing.
    Very little anything can be done with that.
    The images look completely normal to me. It will look the same even if you use another camera. It's a very contrasty scene which is exposed for the lighted areas. What exactly do you find wrong with it?

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    6,580

    Default

    I agree..... what's wrong? If u find the shots dull, that's bec they look a little underexposed. 8 secs is a little too short. U might want to lower the shutter speed more to around 20 seconds. U'll start seeing the "starring" effects that u see in many night shots. The scene is quite dark as the blocks of flats in the centre and left of the shot are not lighted. The illumination comes mainly from the block on the left and the Parkway Parade neons.

    If u are using a digicam, then maybe your minimum shutter speed might be a hindrance. Most digicams limit shutter speeds to only 1-4 secs. Having 8 secs is very good already... try using higher ISO at 8secs... like ISO200. I notice the ISO400 shot looks rather noisy.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    2,324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TME
    I agree..... what's wrong? If u find the shots dull, that's bec they look a little underexposed. 8 secs is a little too short. U might want to lower the shutter speed more to around 20 seconds. U'll start seeing the "starring" effects that u see in many night shots. The scene is quite dark as the blocks of flats in the centre and left of the shot are not lighted. The illumination comes mainly from the block on the left and the Parkway Parade neons.

    If u are using a digicam, then maybe your minimum shutter speed might be a hindrance. Most digicams limit shutter speeds to only 1-4 secs. Having 8 secs is very good already... try using higher ISO at 8secs... like ISO200. I notice the ISO400 shot looks rather noisy.
    TME, thanks for sharing!

    Perhaps you have got me wrong or perhaps you are referring to eyes' suggestion......

    If you view these two shots that I posted in the beginning, the 8secs shot was set to EV-1, ISO50. When set to EV0, the image is very bright and some parts are over-exposed!
    Would you like to view again:
    5 secs: http://www.pbase.com/image/25545555/original

    8 secs: http://www.pbase.com/image/25545556/original

    Personally, these nightshots are acceptable. Just want to compare the quality with cameras of similar category (<$400 3megpixels)! Would like comments.

    I, too, not sure what's wrong with the images that eyes found. So done the 1s, 2s, 4s, and 8s with different ISO for discussion! Quite confused with what eyes said too! Too technical to me, but hope to learn.
    Last edited by LifeWorld; 1st February 2004 at 05:00 PM.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    6,580

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LifeWorld
    TME, thanks for sharing!

    Perhaps you have got me wrong or perhaps you are referring to eyes' suggestion......

    If you view these two shots that I posted in the beginning, the 8secs shot was set to EV-1, ISO50. When set to EV0, the image is very bright and some parts are over-exposed!
    Would you like to view again:
    5 secs: http://www.pbase.com/image/25545555/original

    8 secs: http://www.pbase.com/image/25545556/original

    Personally, these nightshots are acceptable. Just want to compare the quality with cameras of similar category (<$400 3megpixels)! Would like comments.

    I, too, not sure what's wrong with the images that eyes found. So done the 1s, 2s, 4s, and 8s with different ISO for discussion! Quite confused with what eyes said too! Too technical to me, but hope to learn.
    My post was referring specifically to the original shot (8 sec) that u posted. There is absolutely nothing wrong with them. What eyes was trying to say was that the dynamic range of the photo was too great for the camera's CCD (that is the case even for film or DSLRs). Remember that our eyes are superior to the film or CCD, so it can resolve greater dynamic range than made-man material. As a result, the bright spots in the frame get overexposed while the dark areas are properly exposed.

    The problem or the challenge with cameras is that u have to choose what u want to expose for. In the scene that u took, there is an extreme in lighting conditions. If u expose the shot for the bright lights for a given aperture value (i.e. fast shutter speed), the dark areas become too dark and lose all detail. But if u expose for the dark areas, the bright spots become overexposed and burn out sometimes.

    The trick is then to find an expsoure setting that allows u to capture maximum details in the dark areas but do not allow the brights spots to burn out.

    The shot that u took at (8sec, original) is a little dark but that is probably due to the scene being rather dark overall. U have to expect those rather bright spots which are lights. If u take a look at the night photos put up by CS members in their photo galleries (check their signatures), u'll find that with the right aperture value and shutter speed, those bright spots can be quite beautiful.....

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TME
    Remember that our eyes are superior to the film or CCD, so it can resolve greater dynamic range than made-man material.
    Actually, that's not quite true. The eye can resolve less shades of grey that a monitor can display, let alone what a CCD can capture. However, the eye "cheats" by exposing for the bright lights by "stopping down", ie constricting the pupils or exposing for the shadows by "opening up the aperture", ie dilating the pupils. When it's really really dark, it even uses an alternative sensor, ie the rods to increase the "iso" at the expense of noise and colour. So at the same "aperture", ie pupil size, your dynamic range is worse than the CCD.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    6,580

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by linse
    Actually, that's not quite true. The eye can resolve less shades of grey that a monitor can display, let alone what a CCD can capture. However, the eye "cheats" by exposing for the bright lights by "stopping down", ie constricting the pupils or exposing for the shadows by "opening up the aperture", ie dilating the pupils. When it's really really dark, it even uses an alternative sensor, ie the rods to increase the "iso" at the expense of noise and colour. So at the same "aperture", ie pupil size, your dynamic range is worse than the CCD.
    I guess I got the terms wrong. I mean greater dynamic range in the sense that the eye can adjust to varying conditions in a much faster and more subtle way than a camera can and in so doing can extract maximum detail from a scene with highly contrasting images in the minimum time (varies from individuals I guess). The camera cannot do this because it can only meter one spot or area within a given exposure latitude at one time. So the eye is still a better optical tool than the camera.... that's my understanding at the moment.... the technicalities I'm not too clear but the eye is certainly a marvellous creation.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    2,324

    Default

    Thank you, both. I think I understand what both of you meant.
    I chose this image with under-exposed over the other one with over-exposed. The under-exposed one reflects the actual scene, where like TME mentioned, it was originally very dark!

    Btw, I had problem searching for night shots by CS members! That's why I posted this thread.

    Suggest having a 'Night Scene' sub-forum under the 'Photo Galleries' forum. moderator, how about that?
    Last edited by LifeWorld; 1st February 2004 at 11:57 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •