well what do you know "hi light inspection" shows the EXACT fine line blown highlights as my in camera zebras.
and look at the ovexp values .018 😄not accurate 😉
@BillFerris has written:With the funnels positioned above the pixel buckets, it gives a visual impression of ISO as a pre-exposure setting. My understanding is that ISO is a post-exposure setting applied during processing of the data to render a JPEG.
Usually, but not for all cameras at all ISOs, the ISO setting affects the gain applied before the raw file is written. Gain in this case is measured by the counts in the raw file divided by the number of electrons in the pixel. The dimensions of the gain at electrons^-1. So the funnel analogy works in general for ISO.
You could get picky and say that I've lumped together conversion gain and both analog and digital amplification with my funnels, and I'd agree with you. Like most analogies, this one falls apart if you push it too far.
The conversion of number of raindrops to millimeters of water in the bucket is reminiscent of conversion gain, which converts numbers of electrons to voltage.
Does that help?
It does help and, given that I'm an advocate for the use of simplified language, I'm not going to get too nit-picky over an article that is geared toward the intermediate level photographer.
i dropped a bomb on the other thread and i will do the same here if i have to. with all the information to show who the moron is.
Please do, with full access to the raw files rather than the stupid game you trying and keep doing
@IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written:your raw viewer shows a tiny hump
Try techsupport.
well what do you know "hi light inspection" shows the EXACT fine line blown highlights as my in camera zebras.
and look at the ovexp values .018 😄not accurate 😉
0.018+0.007+0.009%.
Try techsupport. As of now, all you are demonstrating is that zebras are not telling you that only a few pixels are clipped.
i dropped a bomb
You didn't, unless you mean the pigeons sort of a bomb :)
just shot an image useing my zebras and they show more information as to what is blown in camera than your raw viewer 😂 your raw viewer shows a tiny hump, my camera show 4 hairline strips with zebras 😁
That's because most of the time (if not all the time) the in-camera histogram is more conservative so to say and shows highlight clipping where there's no clipping (or less clipping) in raw.
Bigger zebras or bigger spikes in the histogram doesn't mean there's 'more information'. It's actually less information than in raw histogram.
@JohnVickers has written: @DonaldB has written:who said they havnt ? all cameras histograms are calibrated on the safe side of clipping thats all. plug a field monitor into your camera and see what a very detailed histogram looks like compared to say raw digger. on my sony a74 you can calibrate the cameras metering system and also the histogram/blinkies clipping warnings. been there done that and reset the camera back to default settings for 1/3 stop head room.
The basic question that arises here is: Are you a Troll or a Moron ?
i dropped a bomb on the other thread and i will do the same here if i have to. with all the information to show who the moron is.
This is just another fantasy tangent you go on when you have been shown to be wrong.
Here we go again!
Please keep the discourse courteous.
David
Here we go again!
Please keep the discourse courteous.
David
I'm being both courteous and accurate.
I wasn't the one who earlier questioned if he is a troll or moron or the one who referred to his 'bomb' as pigeon droppings.
Go and preach to those members as well if you need to be taken seriously.
@DonaldB has written:just shot an image useing my zebras and they show more information as to what is blown in camera than your raw viewer 😂 your raw viewer shows a tiny hump, my camera show 4 hairline strips with zebras 😁
That's because most of the time (if not all the time) the in-camera histogram is more conservative so to say and shows highlight clipping where there's no clipping (or less clipping) in raw.
Bigger zebras or bigger spikes in the histogram doesn't mean there's 'more information'. It's actually less information than in raw histogram.
maybe on your camera but not my a74
@Quarkcharmed has written: @DonaldB has written:just shot an image useing my zebras and they show more information as to what is blown in camera than your raw viewer 😂 your raw viewer shows a tiny hump, my camera show 4 hairline strips with zebras 😁
That's because most of the time (if not all the time) the in-camera histogram is more conservative so to say and shows highlight clipping where there's no clipping (or less clipping) in raw.
Bigger zebras or bigger spikes in the histogram doesn't mean there's 'more information'. It's actually less information than in raw histogram.
maybe on your camera but not my a74
That is at best just your opinion and not an established fact.
@davidwien has written:Here we go again!
Please keep the discourse courteous.
David
I'm being both courteous and accurate.
I wasn't the one who earlier questioned if he is a troll or moron.
you own a sony a74 ?
@DonaldB has written:i dropped a bomb on the other thread and i will do the same here if i have to. with all the information to show who the moron is.
Please do, with full access to the raw files rather than the stupid game you trying and keep doing
i would suggest you learn how to set your camera up correctly. but then again you might be shooting an old camera and not have the functions i have on my a74.
@IanSForsyth has written: @DonaldB has written:i dropped a bomb on the other thread and i will do the same here if i have to. with all the information to show who the moron is.
Please do, with full access to the raw files rather than the stupid game you trying and keep doing
i would suggest you learn how to set your camera up correctly. but then again you might be shooting an old camera and not have the functions i have on my a74.
You're running away again after suggesting you have proof to backup your claims and then challenged to post it.
Not to railroad your thread Jim. but there is no way in gods earth you could get the accuracy shooting raw with any method that would match my a74 using the zebras even if you had a computer plugged into your camera. shame i havent my field monitor. i can move the camera spot metering millimetres from left to right and fine tune exposure to infinite of a stop not just 1/3rd. . in fact the movement of the camera as i press the shutter button can change it 😀 the deleted members camera set up from the other thread is bang on. what im posting is not new, sony uses have been setting there cameras up for a while with his numbers.
Not to railroad your thread Jim. but there is no way in gods earth you could get the accuracy shooting raw with any method that would match my a74 using the zebras even if you had a computer plugged into your camera. shame i havent my field monitor. i can move the camera spot metering millimetres from left to right and fine tune exposure to infinite of a stop not just 1/3rd. . in fact the movement of the camera as i press the shutter button can change it 😀 the deleted members camera set up from the other thread is bang on. what im posting is not new, sony uses have been setting there cameras up for a while with his numbers.
Without any proof to backup your opinion it is totally reasonable to believe it is total nonsense.
Without any proof to backup your opinion it is totally reasonable to believe it is total nonsense.
There are a few ways to make Sony zebras more accurate, within 96 to 98 % of saturation for regular scenes, one is to set the camera to HLG with zebras set to 100+, the other is to use highlight metering with zebras set to 108+ or 109+. It's widely known among Sony shooters.
there is no way in gods earth you could get the accuracy shooting raw with any method that would match my a74 using the zebras even if you had a computer plugged into your camera.
ROTFLMAO