Exposure Simulator
andersenimages.com
Exposure Simulator
1–10 of 83 posts
Re: Exposure Simulator
#2That does a fairly good job.
I'm sure that image nerds would poke holes in it, but it seems to work pretty much exactly the way it does IRL.
The noise at high ISO is where it can get specific. Some manufacturers make cameras that actually do really well, at high ISO, and high shutter speed. This seems to reproduce a consumer DSLR.
Re: Exposure Simulator
#3Changing the ISO appears to scale the noise differently from the rest of the image.
Re: Exposure Simulator
#4That does a fairly good job. I'm sure that image nerds would poke holes in it, but it seems to work pretty much exactly the way it does IRL. The noise at high ISO is where it can get specific. Some manufacturers make cameras that actually do really well, at high ISO, and high shutter speed. This seems to reproduce a consumer DSLR.
With the disclaimer that I am comparing to the memory of some entry-level cameras, I would still say that it's way too noisy.
Even on old, entry-level APS-C cameras, ISO1600 is normally very usable. What is rendered here at ISO1600 feels more like the "get the picture at any cost" levels of ISO, which on those limited cameras would be something like ISO6400+.
Heck, the original pictures (there is one for each aperture setting) are taken at ISO640 (Canon EOS 5D MarkII at 67mm)!
(Granted, many are too allergic to noise and end up missing a picture instead of just taking the noisy one which is a shame, but that's another story entirely.)
Re: Exposure Simulator
#5That does a fairly good job. I'm sure that image nerds would poke holes in it, but it seems to work pretty much exactly the way it does IRL. The noise at high ISO is where it can get specific. Some manufacturers make cameras that actually do really well, at high ISO, and high shutter speed. This seems to reproduce a consumer DSLR.
Video showcasing ISO noise behavior of a few different cameras: https://youtu.be/iiMfAmWbWSg?t=94s
Re: Exposure Simulator
#6That does a fairly good job. I'm sure that image nerds would poke holes in it, but it seems to work pretty much exactly the way it does IRL. The noise at high ISO is where it can get specific. Some manufacturers make cameras that actually do really well, at high ISO, and high shutter speed. This seems to reproduce a consumer DSLR.
Video showcasing ISO noise behavior of a few different cameras: https://youtu.be/iiMfAmWbWSg?t=94s
That's a pretty good demo!
Very limited camera choices, though.
Re: Exposure Simulator
#7Re: Exposure Simulator
#8That does a fairly good job. I'm sure that image nerds would poke holes in it, but it seems to work pretty much exactly the way it does IRL. The noise at high ISO is where it can get specific. Some manufacturers make cameras that actually do really well, at high ISO, and high shutter speed. This seems to reproduce a consumer DSLR.
I recently bought a film camera (Minolta X-700) and I wasted a whole roll because I inverted the aperture (i.e, 2 = sharp, 32 = blur)...
I'm interested to see how the roll turns out - gave it for development the other day, had a good laugh with the employees though.
I now have a mnemonic for it: Blor - a (somewhat) portmanteau of Blur and low. So low aperture = blur.
Edit for clarification: I mean low number (2 vs 32) = blur
Re: Exposure Simulator
#9That does a fairly good job. I'm sure that image nerds would poke holes in it, but it seems to work pretty much exactly the way it does IRL. The noise at high ISO is where it can get specific. Some manufacturers make cameras that actually do really well, at high ISO, and high shutter speed. This seems to reproduce a consumer DSLR.
I recently bought a film camera (Minolta X-700) and I wasted a whole roll because I inverted the aperture (i.e, 2 = sharp, 32 = blur)... I'm interested to see how the roll turns out - gave it for development the other day, had a good laugh with the employees though. I now have a mnemonic for it: Blor - a (somewhat) portmanteau of Blur and low. So low aperture = blur. Edit for clarification: I mean low number (2 vs 32…
The larger the entrance pupil is, the narrower the depth of field is.
The smaller, i.e. the closest to an ideal pinhole camera, the wider the depth of field is. A an ideal pinhole camera has infinite depth of field.
Unfortunately the aperture f numbers are the wrong way round; larger numbers correspond to smaller diameters.
Re: Exposure Simulator
#10That does a fairly good job. I'm sure that image nerds would poke holes in it, but it seems to work pretty much exactly the way it does IRL. The noise at high ISO is where it can get specific. Some manufacturers make cameras that actually do really well, at high ISO, and high shutter speed. This seems to reproduce a consumer DSLR.
I recently bought a film camera (Minolta X-700) and I wasted a whole roll because I inverted the aperture (i.e, 2 = sharp, 32 = blur)... I'm interested to see how the roll turns out - gave it for development the other day, had a good laugh with the employees though. I now have a mnemonic for it: Blor - a (somewhat) portmanteau of Blur and low. So low aperture = blur. Edit for clarification: I mean low number (2 vs 32…
High aperture = Blur
Unfortunately the lower number actually means bigger aperture.