Lee Jones wrote:
>> It could also allow for in-camera adjustment on the dynamic range
>> and shadow detail.
>
> Even if the hardware supported this accurate a view, I don't see
> how you could control the adjustments rapidly enough to capture a
> changing scene -- it's fidly work that takes time you don't have
> when taking the photograph.

You may not have time for it with some photographs.  Sometimes you have all
the time you want to set up.

> Much better results are achieved by using the raw mode (Canon: CRx;
> Nikon: NEF) of higher end cameras where the actual photosite readings
> are kept as 14 to 16 bit values  and the conversion is done later in
> a higher end computer where you can see the resuls of your adjustments
> and tweak them to get what you previsualized (i.e. with Photoshop or
> equivalent).

Yes, that would definitely be better.  I haven't used a high end digital
camera yet and wasn't aware this was a option.  I expect the image files are
much larger in raw mode?  Still, with the price of 10s of Gbytes little with
respect to a high end camera, this doesn't sound like a problem.  As long as
the companies publish the raw mode image file format spec, this would
definitely be how I'd use such a camera.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist