How to get the best raw exposure, part 2

Smashed it out the park.

Luminance from main menu.

[quote="@xpatUSA"]
Donald and Alf win - nobody else knows anything ..,..

Look Officer there is no way that I could be speeding and there is no way that I was traveling at 150 kmph when my speedometer only goes to 100

But officer you need to read the speed signs posted. 😁

Maybe I can take the Officer in the vehicle and show them with a macro image taken of the speedometer and the pedal to the metal showing them that the car indeed has not gone over 100

7 pixels (not rgb )= 1/3 of a stop this is my live histogram
and the line at the end is the boarder not clipping 😎

Again, change WB in camera and check how this histogram changes on the same scene and all other settings except the WB.

we are discussing how accurate the in-camera histogram is compared to the raw image opened in Fast Raw Viewer. and in fact other software like photoshop as well. I dont care how it gets there.

can someone tell me how many stops this image is over exposed from the numbers.
Thanks

and this one to please

Dont worry i read the Manual for FRV its accurate as myself and the camera will ever be. Thanks Illah well worth the money. just to say i told you all so 😁

My kind of English, nice program Illah, if anyone wants to get into some great discussions, buy it. i highly recommend it. as its the level playing field that every tech head plays on.

and for the record, of course the RGB histograms are very slightly clipped, if i hadnt clipped them and had the numbers to prove it on FRV everyone would have said i still had 3 stops to saturation 😁

And again - in-camera histogram is produced from processed images, raw histogram - from unprocessed images, so it shows what you have for further processing, and it's most accurate.

But its no more accurate at determining the ultimate contrasty scene exposure as is the in-camera histogram, especially the sony live histogram. the only problem is you need a 3x jewelers loupe to see it properly 😁

Back to the Lens Rentals item it ends with a very simple set of instructions that boil down to making sure you don't blow the highlights and not "underexposing" by more than four stops. This isn't far from my own practice of not blowing the preview highlights and using base ISO or the first step on dual conversion gain. Assuming these suggestions are sound it seems to make all the more subtle debate superfluous.

You haven't proven anything because you have a history of faking images to push your agenda so there is no way to verify where those images came from.

Just for you Dunno

I have no way of verifying who took that photo, so what point are you attempting to make?

It's definitely more accurate as it has the best possible accuracy. You literally can't do any better than a raw data analyser/histogram. The only issue there's no raw histogram in live view in any camera, but nobody argued that. It's rarely practical to use an external device to analyse the raw histogram in the field.
But for post-shooting analysis it's the best you can get.