> Take a look at some youtube videos of a Nikon P1000 at maximum zoom looking through ordinary atmosphere at some distance away for an example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhQlwKX3LQA
>To me, this looks like what my eyes would see when in the room vs what the camera itself would show which would either be blown out views outside the windows or the room too dark.
Honestly it's hard to tell without a reference picture. Looking at the first picture, it seems reasonable that the living room would be well lit because of huge windows. However, the section with the tall houseplants look nearly as bright as the open living room area, which seems doubtful.
> also is there some intrinsic limitation of the dynamic range of cameras? people are talking about problems with dynamic range being intrinsic to cameras but im pretty sure that cameras and especially camera suites that do not have more problems with dynamic range than a human eye are possible to make and probably already on the market.
I think it's possible that professional movie cameras (with the appropriate lenses) may have higher dynamic range than human vision. Good luck getting those cheaper than a lidar.
I like your comment and I'm keenly interested in seeing a picture of your camera setup (what do the driver's see). Please post it somewhere.
However, keep in mind that you don't have enough data from a practice you just put into effect yesterday. This is probably confirmation bias kicking in.
Check out this NOVA video on how limited your acute vision actually is. It is only by rapidly moving our eyes around that we have high quality vision. In the places you are not looking your brain is computing what it thinks is happening, not actually watching it.
> Smartphone cameras work pretty well outdoors where there is enough light. DSLR and mirroless are hard to beat indoors in low light conditions.
I was sightseeing in the night and had my Nikon D7100 (crop sensor) with a good lens (up to f/1.8 iirc) and Samsung Galaxy S8+. After the first few shots, I put the dslr back to my backpack, the photos from the phone were much better. And that’s a pretty old smartphone!
I know newer Sonys have crazy ISO, also own a fullframe, but it’s just so easy to mess some setting up and end up with crappy photo from a dslr in those challenging conditions, and I’m no beginner when it comes to dslrs.
> I wonder if it would be possible to put the camera shutter and the oled out of phase enough to substantially dim it.
That's a neat idea. It reminds me of the early fighter planes that fired bullets between the propeller blades by having the gun driven off the engine, timed so that the bullet passes through the plane of the propeller while the blades are not in the way.
> No mater how much you fumble with aperture and shutter speed there's simply no way to expand the camera sensor dynamic range without taking multiple exposures.
>Why spent time worrying about what a cell phone camera can achieve in poor or uneven lighting if a bog-standard webcam can do a really good job if you just fix the damned lighting?
You are just being purposefully an ass. What about on a cloudly day, how does your sun help you then? What about at night? Not to mention most people don't have the luxury to arrange their home to optimize for picture quality on a fucking Zoom call.
Yes, you can help a shitty camera with lights, but we could just have good cameras. You can still fiddle with your lights until heat death of universe, but rest of us just want cameras that work even if we have to pay a little bit more.
> which is what you get with a mirrorless system, has its benefits
I never found those benefits. What would you say they are?
Early on, the problem was mirrorless were slow in autofocus, and they had relatively terrible EV quality. Now they have better autofocus than mirrorless, and more importantly, with the very high resolution EV displays they have now [1], what you see is exactly what you end up getting. You don't have to guess about anything anymore, like what's going to blow out, which is fantastic. What you see in an optical viewfinder with your eye is not what your sensor sees is going to portray. I don't see any benefit to optical viewfinders at this point.
>Obviously, in a purely hypothetical landscape, even with cameras you should be able to emulate what humans can do and have 100% attentiveness. That is to say, humans don't have lidar and radar, yet humans do drive.
Which camera has the same dynamic range as the human eye?
> The sensor actually has 12 stops of dynamic range but automatic pre-processing knocks it down 2 stops (though there are tools that circumvent that). "Hahahahaha".
This comment suggests you don’t even remotely understand the poisson statistics underlying sensor noise, or else it would be obvious why they “knock off” those two bits. The SNR of the iPhone sensor is fundamentally limited by the size of the capacitors at each photosite.
> You have never seen the actual RAW data
Yes I have, and my mention of “libraw” should have been a clue for you.
> Do you know what a Bayer filter is?
Yes. I also know about X-trans filters, foveon, etc. I’m fairly confident I can out-namedrop you here ;)
> the iPhone 11 has better dynamic range, single shot, than many SLRs.
> the iPhone 11 has a better noise profile than many SLRs.
Give me a specific SLR in the last 4 years where either of these is true. The data is right there on photonstophotos, so go ahead.
You’re going to have a hard time, and if you understood the physics of how a CMOS sensor works you’d know why.
> I’ve always felt that my eye handles high dynamic range scenes much better than cameras.
Depending on what you mean by “eye handles”, yes, you have far more dynamic range than most cameras. The reason I caveat is that just like how modern smartphones with their “computation images” are really combining multiple shots together, so is your brain. I forget the exact numbers, but I think the retina itself is around 5-8 stops of dynamic range and what your brain “sees” when you are looking around is something like 15-20 stops.
Yes, all cameras look good with great natural light. That's not particularly interesting or useful, because we're not always in perfect lighting to compensate for mediocre cameras that've stagnated for 10 years.
> The dynamic range of the human eye is vastly better than a visible spectrum camera.
Certainly better than any camera mounted on a dashboard.
It's honestly a bit surreal how the pedestrian appears out of the splotch of pure darkness in the frame. That's low dynamic range and resolution (or high compression) at work, not how light behaves in reality.
They have impressive dynamic range, but can be blinded. I wonder how much of this is related to camera window cleanliness though.
https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/i5usdv/fsd_low...
https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/5zxnoj/autopil...
reply