Digital camera (P&S or DSLR) with built in HDR feature

I am just wondering whether HDR feature can be embedded in their image
processing (or using a special sensor) in a digital camera. Is this
possible? Will it likely be included in future cameras - just another
feature or option before taking the photos? Or is such a digital
camera already here? I know some people will ask this necessity as
there are softwares (photoshop CS, Photomatix, and many others) that
can do this job as a post processing. It is fine for them who spend
hundred of hours playing around with 20 MB RAW photo files, and do a
lot of post processing, etc. Unfortunately, there are likely others
like me who must do something else to make a living (i.e. not a
professional) and there are not enough hours in a day to spend the
time post-processing photos. If I have to do this, it means that I
have to cut my sleep, or let the grass in my yard grows. (This is
another reason that I keep having a nagging question about the digital
camera which has better processing engine than the others, so that it
can give me the better quality and rich colour photos without spending
extra time to play around with in teh computer).
Thanks for info

<aniramca@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189555711.257007.238080@r29g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
>I am just wondering whether HDR feature can be embedded in their image
> processing (or using a special sensor) in a digital camera. Is this
> possible? Will it likely be included in future cameras - just another
> feature or option before taking the photos? Or is such a digital
> camera already here? I know some people will ask this necessity as
> there are softwares (photoshop CS, Photomatix, and many others) that
> can do this job as a post processing. It is fine for them who spend
> hundred of hours playing around with 20 MB RAW photo files, and do a
> lot of post processing, etc. Unfortunately, there are likely others
> like me who must do something else to make a living (i.e. not a
> professional) and there are not enough hours in a day to spend the
> time post-processing photos. If I have to do this, it means that I
> have to cut my sleep, or let the grass in my yard grows. (This is
> another reason that I keep having a nagging question about the digital
> camera which has better processing engine than the others, so that it
> can give me the better quality and rich colour photos without spending
> extra time to play around with in teh computer).
> Thanks for info
>

That is a huge paragraph.

Including a pre-programmed HDR mode might be a good idea but, that would
take all the fun out of it. In someways, the mode is already at your
fingertips. Most cameras designed for photographers, (not point-and-shoot),
have the ability to automatically bracket the exposure.

At any rate, what is so difficult about ratcheting the shutter speed up or
down as you make your exposures?

Not until digital cameras start using computer CPU's and not the little
calculator like ones they do use (process power, I am not saying they are
using a calculator processor, just one that is about as powerful when
compared to the processor in our computers).

Combining images in to an HDR image would require major processing power and
a considerable amount of RAM. Both things digital cameras have very little
of. More of both however would be nice. They could do some really good menu
interfaces, trully powerful black and white conversion instead of just
desaturating the color image and more. Imagine a dSLR with an ISO of 20,000
with noise ninja noise reduction? It would certainly open the door for some
interesting things. But, would also increase the cost of a camera by $500 to
$1000.

Somebody!

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:07:31 -0700, "Somebody" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>They could do some really good menu
>interfaces, trully powerful black and white conversion instead of just
>desaturating the color image and more.

You must be using some older cameras or something. One that I tested for this
doesn't just desaturate the image for B&W modes. Comparing two images taken of
the same color chart, one taken in color and another in B&W mode, then using a
channel mixer in an editor to make the color image's color squares match the
gray levels in the B&W image's respective gray squares. It came out to be the
same proportions as if seen by the eye or if doing B&W darkroom work. From
memory, the channels in the color photo came out to be something like 21% red,
64% green, and 15% blue to match the same gray levels in the B&W image. A simple
desaturation wouldn't cause that. That was the first thing I tried in the editor
with the color photo, just desaturating it, the gray levels between the two were
all way off.

It was one of the Canon PowerShots that I tested for this. I was curious to see
how they were doing it.

Somebody wrote:

> ...Imagine a dSLR with an
> ISO of 20,000 with noise ninja noise reduction? It would certainly open
> the door for some interesting things. But, would also increase the cost
> of a camera by $500 to $1000.

Yes, and it's available in the newest models. The $5,000 Nikon D3 for
example at ISO 25,600 (boosted).

--
Paul Furman Photography
http://edgehill.net
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:13:38 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

>Somebody wrote:
>
>> ...Imagine a dSLR with an
>> ISO of 20,000 with noise ninja noise reduction? It would certainly open
>> the door for some interesting things. But, would also increase the cost
>> of a camera by $500 to $1000.
>
>Yes, and it's available in the newest models. The $5,000 Nikon D3 for
>example at ISO 25,600 (boosted).

Funny that. I bought a Sony camera with NightShot mode over 6 years ago that has
ISO 3200 in it that's perfectly acceptable and can even take images (and videos,
even while zooming) and swiftly focus, doing all this in total darkness with
infrared light alone.

A $5,000 camera today that can't even do that? You can keep it.

Boy, do they ever have you people snowballed and brainwashed. Bend over and take
it with a smile on your face, just as you always do.

Brandon Grande wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:13:38 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Somebody wrote:
>>
>>>...Imagine a dSLR with an
>>>ISO of 20,000 with noise ninja noise reduction? It would certainly open
>>>the door for some interesting things. But, would also increase the cost
>>>of a camera by $500 to $1000.
>>
>>Yes, and it's available in the newest models. The $5,000 Nikon D3 for
>>example at ISO 25,600 (boosted).
>
>
> Funny that. I bought a Sony camera with NightShot mode over 6 years ago that has
> ISO 3200

3,200 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 25,600

and ISO 6,400 without boosting

> in it that's perfectly acceptable and can even take images (and videos,
> even while zooming) and swiftly focus, doing all this in total darkness with
> infrared light alone.
>
> A $5,000 camera today that can't even do that? You can keep it.
>
> Boy, do they ever have you people snowballed and brainwashed. Bend over and take
> it with a smile on your face, just as you always do.
>


--
Paul Furman Photography
http://edgehill.net
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:38:55 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

>Brandon Grande wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:13:38 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Somebody wrote:
>>>
>>>>...Imagine a dSLR with an
>>>>ISO of 20,000 with noise ninja noise reduction? It would certainly open
>>>>the door for some interesting things. But, would also increase the cost
>>>>of a camera by $500 to $1000.
>>>
>>>Yes, and it's available in the newest models. The $5,000 Nikon D3 for
>>>example at ISO 25,600 (boosted).
>>
>>
>> Funny that. I bought a Sony camera with NightShot mode over 6 years ago that has
>> ISO 3200
>
>3,200 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 25,600
>
>and ISO 6,400 without boosting
>

1 real f-stop, and 2 fake ones, does not a $4,500 increase in cost, nor a sale,
make. You are more than welcome to be first in line to buy one. I'll just watch
and laugh if you don't mind. I'll gladly give up that extremely meager increase
in favor of the extra capabilities not even in that camera, which I already
bought over 6 years ago. Put it in perspective. You're being taken for an
ultimate fool. That must be the new marketing campaign. "Let's see just what
they are willing to bend over and take, and even be happy about paying for the
royal reaming we're going to give them." While they laugh all the way to the
bank at the expense of turning you into an even bigger fool than last year.

That's *exactly* what it boils down to.

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:08:31 -0700, aniramca wrote:

> I am just wondering whether HDR feature can be embedded in their image
> processing (or using a special sensor) in a digital camera. Is this
> possible? Will it likely be included in future cameras - just another
> feature or option before taking the photos? Or is such a digital
> camera already here? I know some people will ask this necessity as
> there are softwares (photoshop CS, Photomatix, and many others) that
> can do this job as a post processing. It is fine for them who spend
> hundred of hours playing around with 20 MB RAW photo files, and do a
> lot of post processing, etc. Unfortunately, there are likely others
> like me who must do something else to make a living (i.e. not a
> professional) and there are not enough hours in a day to spend the
> time post-processing photos. If I have to do this, it means that I
> have to cut my sleep, or let the grass in my yard grows. (This is
> another reason that I keep having a nagging question about the digital
> camera which has better processing engine than the others, so that it
> can give me the better quality and rich colour photos without spending
> extra time to play around with in teh computer).
> Thanks for info

Have you tried simply applying a curve correction to a raw file in
something like ufraw? It's not full blown hdr, but it can yield some
fairly impressive results - and it does not take very long - a metter of a
few seconds.

Brandon Grande wrote:
> Paul Furman wrote:
>>Brandon Grande wrote:
>>>Paul Furman wrote:
>>>>Somebody wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>...Imagine a dSLR with an
>>>>>ISO of 20,000 with noise ninja noise reduction? It would certainly open
>>>>>the door for some interesting things. But, would also increase the cost
>>>>>of a camera by $500 to $1000.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, and it's available in the newest models. The $5,000 Nikon D3 for
>>>>example at ISO 25,600 (boosted).
>>>
>>>Funny that. I bought a Sony camera with NightShot mode
>>>over 6 years ago that has ISO 3200

I see the old $1,000 Sony DSCF707 with Nightshot at ISO 400 but ISO 3200
doesn't appear to have come till this spring with the DSC-H9, and
infrared is different from regular low light photography.


>>3,200 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 25,600
>>
>>and ISO 6,400 without boosting
>
> 1 real f-stop, and 2 fake ones, does not a $4,500 increase in cost,
> nor a sale, make.

I would guess everything over 800 is pushed on the Sony. That would be
three stops faster and probably at least another two stops improvement
possible in the lens, exponentially less shutter lag, etc. Plenty of
differences. I'm not saying the D3 is a bargain or that I'm going to run
out & buy it immediately, just that 'Somebody's dream of ISO 20,000 is
already exceeded if somebody wants that. Personally, I would find a
clean fast ISO 6400 very useful, the 25600 is in fact barely useable.