A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Mirrorless Digital Cameras > Technical > Extended Dynamic Range - How...

Featured Equipment Deals

Latest Learning Articles

Featured Member: Katarzyna Gritzmann Read More

Featured Member: Katarzyna Gritzmann

Photo.net featured member Katarzyna Gritzmann talks about photography and portfolio of images.

Extended Dynamic Range - How many stops?

Ray Fraser , Apr 03, 2005; 05:54 p.m.

I am starting to doubt SMaL's claim of 120db extended dynamic range! I left my basement and took 25 pictures on both a micron imager and a SMaL imager. The lens in SMaL camera is 10mm in diameter and lens in Micron camera is 14mm in diameter (should favor Micron). I alternated between cameras with less than a minute between similar shots. Neither camera has any ability to override automatic electronic rolling shutter.

The comparison below is one I thought demonstrated maximum use of SMaL's patented "advantage". Does anyone see more than 4 stops of difference? That is my best uneducated guess. I still think that by removing bayer and using a pinhole lens, I might be able to double range but doubt that anything near 20 stops is possible.


    1   |   2   |   3     Next    Last

Kai Griffin , Apr 03, 2005; 06:27 p.m.

The top photograph is totally underexposed. How can you make any kind of comparison between two photographs taken with entirely different (and in the top case, incorrect) exposure settings? All you've proven this time is that whatever camera took that top picture has a lousy/broken metering program.

The bottom picture displays worse quality than my old plastic Canon Powershot 350 (circa 1997) might have taken, and certainly no better dynamic range. On this basis, I think you're absolutely right: SMaL amounts to nothing. Maybe now we'll hear the end of it from you?

Keith Van Hulle , Apr 03, 2005; 07:08 p.m.

Just finished reviewing several months of your posts and I'm convinced that this SMaL crap you keep rambling on about is nothing more than trollsh*t. You've even hijacked at least one other thread by your responses to drag SMaL into it. You haven't gotten one single hint from other posters that YOU seem to be the only one who gives a rat's patootie about SMaL. Maybe we need to take up a collection for you to buy a clue? Everyone else is busy with their photography while you seem to want to tilt at the SMaL windmill . . .

Brad - , Apr 03, 2005; 09:09 p.m.

What about BiG? That would be better, right?

Steve Chan , Apr 04, 2005; 02:17 a.m.

I recently tested the SMaL imager versus the consumer grade Panasonic FZ-15 in a shot of Air Force Test charts to determine if the 120db of dynamic range could result in improved contrast of fine details.

Here's a full sized crop from the FZ-15...

100% crom from Panasonic FZ-15 shot of test chart

Steve Chan , Apr 04, 2005; 02:20 a.m.

Here is the equivalent shot taken with the SMaL imager. Do you think that I may be having exposure problems with the patented SMaL imager?

Equivalent 100% crop of test chart from SMaL imager.

Jim Strutz - Anchorage, AK , Apr 04, 2005; 03:35 a.m.

What's truley surprising is that shot from the FZ15. ~1500 lpm if this was done like they do it a DPReview.com. But I agree, you have a problem with the SMaL imager. A bit of underexposure, I suspect. I understand they are difficult devices to work with. Has anyone ever gotten a really good shot with one? Never have like mine.

Kai Griffin , Apr 04, 2005; 04:11 a.m.

Steve, I'm fairly certain that you need to peel off your Bayer filter. The instructions printed on the outside of the cardboard box the camera comes in actually tell you to do this, but many people forget to read them. The Bayer filter is to the sensor what a lens cap is to a lens, and is supposed to be removed before taking pictures.

Jesper de Jong , Apr 04, 2005; 05:06 a.m.

When is this troll's account going to be suspended?

Jan Brittenson , Apr 04, 2005; 05:16 a.m.

I suspect SMaL exists get someone to acquire them. (Which I see Cypress did.) A strategy somewhat along the lines of: 1) invent product with ridiculous claims, 2) embellish with marketing-speak, 3) give product away or pay someone (like Radio Shack) to use it for market share, 4) get ISO 9001 certified, 5) get acquired quickly before running out of cash!

    1   |   2   |   3     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses