Live data from Hacker News

Exposure Simulator

andersenimages.com

41–50 of 83 posts

Re: Exposure Simulator

#41
post #34

I know that modern systems like aperture priority or full auto make things easier, but I maintain that the many photos I took with a fully manual film camera (Canon AE-1) were simply better than those taken with any subsequent DSLR. The simple act of calibrating the shutter speed, aperture size, and manual focus before and during shooting helps you slow down and think about composition and framing, making the end res…

That's why I love fiddling with analog cameras for a bit, or even experimenting with old lens on newer DSLRs. I have a Canon Rebel from 2011 and sometimes love to use my soviet Zenit Helios 44M lens in it. I do have the Zenit which came with this lens, but I have yet to develop its film.

I've started fiddling with an old Canon 30D again just because it's completely devoid of all the automatic post-processing I've become so used to with my phone camera. It's nice to just see the image as it is.

Re: Exposure Simulator

#42

That 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 think it is excellent as well—that it also demonstrates aperture and shutter priority is a bonus. I do feel (image nerding now) that its shutter/ISO visual for showing the image over/under-exposed is not quite correct. It appears they show incorrect exposure by taking the "correct" image and blend (multiply) with either white or blend with black (on the other end of the exposure spectrum) to produce the resulting i…

No, you're correct. I would have expected the highlights to blow out much sooner (for digital) and the shadows to block up much sooner (for analogue). The simulation doesn't portray this accurately, but it gives the general idea!

Re: Exposure Simulator

#43

I know that modern systems like aperture priority or full auto make things easier, but I maintain that the many photos I took with a fully manual film camera (Canon AE-1) were simply better than those taken with any subsequent DSLR. The simple act of calibrating the shutter speed, aperture size, and manual focus before and during shooting helps you slow down and think about composition and framing, making the end res…

> Same goes for the limited number of shots on a roll of film.

You can approximate the same limitation on digital cameras by simply using a very small SD card.

Re: Exposure Simulator

#44

I know that modern systems like aperture priority or full auto make things easier, but I maintain that the many photos I took with a fully manual film camera (Canon AE-1) were simply better than those taken with any subsequent DSLR. The simple act of calibrating the shutter speed, aperture size, and manual focus before and during shooting helps you slow down and think about composition and framing, making the end res…

> Same goes for the limited number of shots on a roll of film. You can approximate the same limitation on digital cameras by simply using a very small SD card.

Or put a large file on a regular size SD card.

Re: Exposure Simulator

#45
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Same goes for the limited number of shots on a roll of film. You can approximate the same limitation on digital cameras by simply using a very small SD card.

Or put a large file on a regular size SD card.

I guess it depends on what "large file" and "regular size SD card" mean to you.

The best selling SD card on B&H is 128 GB. Let's consider that "regular size".

Fujifilm's GFX100 II is a popular medium-format mirrorless camera. Its sensor is 102MP. So each 14-bit RAW image is about 170 MB.

102M pixels x 14 bits = 1.428B bits = ~178M bytes = ~170 MB

So a 128 GB SD card can hold ~771 images that are 170 MB. That's a lot more images than a standard roll of film.

Re: Exposure Simulator

#46

I know that modern systems like aperture priority or full auto make things easier, but I maintain that the many photos I took with a fully manual film camera (Canon AE-1) were simply better than those taken with any subsequent DSLR. The simple act of calibrating the shutter speed, aperture size, and manual focus before and during shooting helps you slow down and think about composition and framing, making the end res…

> Same goes for the limited number of shots on a roll of film. You can approximate the same limitation on digital cameras by simply using a very small SD card.

Approximate, sure, although you can still go back and delete photos from a small SD card, whereas film's more of a consumable resource.

Re: Exposure Simulator

#47
> image "noise" or "grain" that is introduced into a picture as you increase the ISO

Not this absolute shit again. This is not how photography works or how physics actually work. Image noise does NOT come from high ISO, it comes from low exposure (not enough light hitting the sensor). ISO is just a multiplier between a number of photons and the brigthness of a pixel in your photo. The implementation of the multiplier is (usually) half-analog and half-digital, but it's still just a multiplier. If you keep the exposure the same, then changing the ISO on a digital camera will NOT introduce any more noise (except for at the extremes of the range, where, for example, analog readout noise may play a role).

This "simulator" artificially adds noise based on the ISO value, as you can easily discover: Set your shutter to 1/500 and your aperture to F8, then switch between ISO 50 and ISO 1600 and look at the letters on the bulb. ISO 50, dark but perfectly readable. ISO 1600, garbled mess. Since the amount of light hitting the simulated sensor stays the same, you should be seeing slightly LESS noise at ISO 1600 (better signal to noise ratio than at low ISO), not more.

edit: To add something genuinely useful: Use whatever mode suits you (manual, Av, Tv) and just use Auto ISO. Expose for the artistic intent and get as much light in as possible (i.e. use a slower shutter speed unless you need to go faster, use a wider aperture unless you need a narrower one). That’s the light that you have, period. Let the camera choose a multiplier (ISO) that will result in a sane brightness range in your JPEG or RAW (you’ll tweak that anyway in post). If the photo ends up too noisy, sorry but there was not enough light.

ISO is an almost useless concept carried over from film cameras where you had to choose, buy and load your brightness multiplier into the camera. Digital cameras can do that on the fly and there’s usually no reason not to let them. (If you can come up with a reason, you probably don’t need this explanation)

Re: Exposure Simulator

#48
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or put a large file on a regular size SD card.

I guess it depends on what "large file" and "regular size SD card" mean to you. The best selling SD card on B&H is 128 GB. Let's consider that "regular size". Fujifilm's GFX100 II is a popular medium-format mirrorless camera. Its sensor is 102MP. So each 14-bit RAW image is about 170 MB. 102M pixels x 14 bits = 1.428B bits = ~178M bytes = ~170 MB So a 128 GB SD card can hold ~771 images that are 170 MB. That's a lot…

I think they meant that you can pad your regular SD card with random data and leave just enough space for a few photos.

Re: Exposure Simulator

#49
post #8

That 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…

Note that both very high or very low aperture settings also bring their own optical issues. At very low values (big hole) you’re getting hurt by different aberrations (essentially too many paths the same rays can take to the sensor) and at very high values you’re getting hurt by diffraction. At the low end, it’s good to go a little higher than the lens advertises, and at the high end anything over F13-F18 (depending on the gear) is usually quite bad.

Re: Exposure Simulator

#50

> image "noise" or "grain" that is introduced into a picture as you increase the ISO Not this absolute shit again. This is not how photography works or how physics actually work. Image noise does NOT come from high ISO, it comes from low exposure (not enough light hitting the sensor). ISO is just a multiplier between a number of photons and the brigthness of a pixel in your photo. The implementation of the multiplier…

> If you keep the exposure the same, then changing the ISO on a digital camera will NOT introduce any more noise

So does this mean that changin the ISO directly on my camera, or in DarkTable/whatever at post-proc time is virtually the same?

Post reply on HN