Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Film exposure system outdated for digital systems ?

  1. #1

    Default Film exposure system outdated for digital systems ?

    Isnt the traditional exposure system of using 1 exposure for the entire picture outdated now that we are using pixels instead of film ? Its possible to develop a electronic shutter system so that the camera calculates the correct exposure required for each pixel and the amount of time each pixel remains on is varied.

  2. #2

    Default

    Huh? If so, then all your pictures will be all white or all black.
    How would your camera be smart enough to know which part is to be "overexposed" or "underexposed"?

    Even the terms "overexposure" and "underexposure" are pretty subjective and relative...

    Not mocking your idea but somehow radical ideas often have to survive knocks to prove itself...

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sinagpore
    Posts
    72

    Default

    You can always do it in photoshop.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ah Pao
    Huh? If so, then all your pictures will be all white or all black.
    Hi,

    I think it's more of that there would be no shadows, no highlights and a single tone across the whole picture...

    Cheers... =D

  5. #5

    Default

    Hmm, maybe its wasteful/expensive to calculate exposure per pixel. Instead of that the metering can break the pic into larger main components. For example, when you're taking a picture of someone standing in the shade facing the sky. The pixels capturing the blue sky turn on and then off for 1/100s. The pixels capturing the person go on for 1/30 s. Like a extension of the F5 metering system, have a look up table of best fit values.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reno77
    Hmm, maybe its wasteful/expensive to calculate exposure per pixel. Instead of that the metering can break the pic into larger main components. For example, when you're taking a picture of someone standing in the shade facing the sky. The pixels capturing the blue sky turn on and then off for 1/100s. The pixels capturing the person go on for 1/30 s. Like a extension of the F5 metering system, have a look up table of best fit values.
    How in the hell is the meter going to decide how dark or how bright the photographer want for a particular part of the image??

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kit
    How in the hell is the meter going to decide how dark or how bright the photographer want for a particular part of the image??
    Using the F5 example, you'll have a large database of exposure values built in the camera like currently. Instead of sending 1 best fit shutter speed (aperture is still the same for the whole picture) the camera's CPU recognises from all the different segments exposure readings that its taking a pic consisting of both sky and shade, and sends 2 best fit shutter speeds to the CCD pixels.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reno77
    Using the F5 example, you'll have a large database of exposure values built in the camera like currently. Instead of sending 1 best fit shutter speed (aperture is still the same for the whole picture) the camera's CPU recognises from all the different segments exposure readings that its taking a pic consisting of both sky and shade, and sends 2 best fit shutter speeds to the CCD pixels.
    What you've described is roughly similar to multiple exposure. Use it.

  9. #9

    Default

    Actually I think the original question is quite a good one and not one that can be answered in terms of current technology. What I want is a camera with the same exposure lattitude as the human eye, and the same accuracy of auto white-balance. Actually just do away with white-balance all together, make the camera so accurate that you never need to adjust it.

    Surely this is something for camera manufacturers to aim towards. What are we talking, 10 years from now perhaps?

  10. #10

    Default

    Reno77: You seem to be talking about extending the dynamic range? That is already being done by Fuji's SuperCCD 4. I'm sure all manufacturers are trying to get the dynamic range of digital to match and exceed film, it's just a matter of time.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    1,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Royce
    Actually I think the original question is quite a good one and not one that can be answered in terms of current technology. What I want is a camera with the same exposure lattitude as the human eye, and the same accuracy of auto white-balance. Actually just do away with white-balance all together, make the camera so accurate that you never need to adjust it.

    Surely this is something for camera manufacturers to aim towards. What are we talking, 10 years from now perhaps?
    Wah sound very AI -ish to me... But I feel that there's no perfect exposure. It's all subjective anyway, so unless you can program the camera : I like my whites to be whites, unless its the white of a shirt on a Caucausian, in which case it mustn't be so white, and unless its the white of fur on snow etc... its a moot point..

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
  •