My experiments with Sony A700 DRO...

[steve_c.5]

I just wanted to pass on some offhand tests of DRO settings in the Sony A700. I shot some JPEG test shots of a

high dynamic range scene with the A700 today, using a new Sigma 24-70 f2.8 lens. I racked it to 70mm and took

some test shots of a building roof with some fluffy clouds overhead and blue sky peeking thru them. The sun is low

and diffused by other clouds, so it looks kind of overcast.

 

My first shots were ISO 400 due to the decreased evening light levels. I metered on the edge of a gray shingle roof

and did some shots with no DRO, then went to DRO +, then DRO levels 1 thru 5. Of course, DRO 5 gave the best

balance between the dark roof and the bright sky. However, due to the ISO 400, in zooming to 100% I saw more

digital noise than I liked.

 

I backed the ISO down to 100, and did some more test shots. What I notice is that even at ISO 100, the darker

areas that were brightened by DRO had more grain. I guess this system increases ISO in those pixels. One other

artifact I notice is that with the level 5 DRO shot at ISO 160, it produced a dark outline around tree leaves against the

bright sky, sort of like chromatic abberation, but this lens exhibits almost no CA, so I can only conclude that the

abberation around the leaves is a byproduct of the high DRO.

 

I then opened the ISO 100 shot with NO DRO with ACDSee Pro 2, which has a very nice shadow/highlight tool. I did

some shadow/highlight adjustments with that shot, brightening the shadows and darkening the bright sky tones to

bring out more of the blue. At 100%, I see less grain and noise with this shot than the one with DRO.

 

My conclusion here is that if you want to use DRO to capture a landscape scene with a high dynamic range effect,

and you don't mind a little extra noise/grain in the shadows, then use DRO. If you want less noise/grain in the

shadows, then shoot the image with no or low DRO, and low ISO, and then brighten the shadows in post production.

 

In the big picture, these minute amounts of grain aren't really that bad to me, and once the image is printed, you may

not notice a difference. You can also use RAW if you don't mind the bigger file sizes, and you'll of course have more

latitude of adjustments.

 

Hope you folks find this helpful!

[kevin_porter1]

I forget where I came across it, but I seem to remember that the A700 has a native ISO of 200. Does anyone out there knows differently? Obviously that could make a difference for maximizing use of the DRO, or any photo for that matter.

[steve_c.5]

I read that in a forum, but I use ISO 100 when there's enough light. No reason not to. As light drops, my ISO goes up.

[ricardovaste]

Thanks for that Steve!

 

I also had a play the other day with RAW+JPEG and shooting in DRO level 5. I must say, it is very useful. And it's hard for me to admit that, as I've always been a RAW person, never touched JPEG. But the detail's that it was revealing at level 5 were very good, so good that I could only recreate this with a some HDR processing with a RAW file... which does take a bit of time, so I'm honestly thinking about JPEG's and DRO now. If it will save me time on the PC and I wont really lose anything from shooting RAW (if i make sure I get the exposure & WB correct) - I'm all for it.

 

But, it only really has specific applications. Its not an every day thing, but its still a useful tool. Glad to have the option for it now :-).

 

Only thing, if I'm shooting RAW+JPEG (occationally), I can't get many files on my 4GB card. I think I need a couple more :(

[ricardovaste]

Just found a few samples. These are non edited files, snap shots, straight out of camera, so ignore the lack of quality - I'm just illustrating the DRO at Level 5.

<center>

<P>

 

<a href="http://s160.photobucket.com/albums/t185/ricardovaste/?action=view&current=DSC03609.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t185/ricardovaste/DSC03609.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a><br><a href="http://s160.photobucket.com/albums/t185/ricardovaste/?action=view&current=DSC03588.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t185/ricardovaste/DSC03588.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a><br><a href="http://s160.photobucket.com/albums/t185/ricardovaste/?action=view&current=DSC03595.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t185/ricardovaste/DSC03595.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a></center><p>Very useful if you ask me. Though, i guess, a lot of the time you can get the same effect from just processing one film in a non HDR way simply in IDC. But, I guess it has its place, epecially for non RAW shooters or when you can't use a graduated filter on a lens.

[steve_c.5]

Thanks, Richard, nice shots! BTW, I had a typo in my original post. I put "ISO 160", and meant ISO 100.

[peterblaise]

At least according to David Kilpatrick, I think Sony's point in the way they implement DRO+ is to allow

photographers to immediately make distributable JPGs in-camera with no additional work so shots can be published

right from the camera, making submission to Alamy.com and other stock agencies, and to any other publication

resources, as instant and painless as possible. I think Sony's goal is to move from P&S point and shoot, to S&P

shoot and publish.

 

Minolta was a leader in photographic automation with automatic aperture operation, auto exposure, automatic flash

exposure control, auto focus, auto wind, automatic tripod avoidance (anti shake), and so on. Sony's

incorporation of Apical's automatic dynamic range optimization fits right into the age-old Minolta trajectory of

automating everything. I see Sony/Apical DRO+ as yet another image quality control tweak that we photographers

can learn to manage and incorporate into our shooting practices along with exposure, depth of field focus,

framing, composition, and so on. If we can know DRO+ well, then we can anticipate its optimum application and

performance for any scene, and we can quickly adjust it before each shot or each shoot at a common scenic area

(we need a direct access control to DRO+ adjustments, right?), and then just shoot. And we're done. The

captured picture is ready to publish.

 

Sure, we have the RAW for posterity and artful dodging, but the immediate in-camera JPG is ready for publication

immediately upon releasing the shutter button. This is revolutionary. Sort of.

 

Yes, of course, publishing images with no post capture manipulation has been extant since time immemorial. But

here, we're talking about more than that. We're talking about auto Photoshoping in-camera. Nikon does some

in-camera auto dynamic range manipulation, and also allows manual post capture manipulation, also in-camera. I'd

like to see Sony release in-camera post capture DRO+ manipulation, or even just auto DRO+ bracketing where we

could compare, say, a + / - 3 DRO bracket on demand. But post processing seems anathema to Sony's marketing (and

probably the engineering Mind of Minolta). Sony has made it pretty clear that they want to simplify in-camera

image perfection. Shoot and publish to Alamy, and to HDTV. Whomever you are, Sony wants to simplify the capture

and sharing of automatically optimized images of which you can be proud.

 

Read about the original Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 DRO from Apical Ltd:

 

http://www.apical-imaging.com/sony

 

Excerpt: "... New Sony Alpha D-SLR [A100] includes an innovative feature known as "D-Range Optimizer" which uses

Apical's image processing technology in its Advanced mode ... analyzes the image section by section and adjusts

the brightness of each area individually to ensure your photo is as beautiful and balanced as the scene that

inspired you ..."

 

Apparently using Apical's iridix technology:

 

http://www.apical-imaging.com/iridix

 

Excerpt: "... Apical’s image processing module iridix provides high-quality contrast optimisation for a wide

range of image capture ... For cameras, it allows images to be captured which look natural just as seen by the

user’s own eyes, even in uneven or otherwise difficult illumination conditions ... Its proprietary dynamic range

control algorithms adaptively apply a different tone correction curve to [individual image sections] ... colour

correction is additionally provided for unprecedented control of image quality ... Image content which is

normally lost in dark areas can be revealed without damaging bright areas. Regions which are over-saturated can

be brought within display range without affecting visibility in dark parts of the image ..."

 

White paper:

 

http://www.apical-imaging.com/UserFiles/Apical%20iridix%20overview%20_images_.pdf

 

Also see IC imaging cores and DCS digital still cameras at:

 

http://www.apical-imaging.com/iridix_ip

 

Excerpt: "... IP cores ... Apical’s iridix cores have been designed for maximum performance at lowest LSI [large

scale integration chip] gate count and memory, and built for easy integration into a typical camera ... They

operate synchronously with the video signal and can support up to 1080p at full frame rate and 16 Megapixel still

images ... RGB at both 8 and 10 bit depths ... High: Highest image quality and performance. Full

HD/cinema/professional camera applications ... Standard: Optimal balance between image quality and gate

count/memory usage. Well-suited to most display and camera applications ... Lite: Optimised for lowest gate count

and power consumption ... still image data is output synchronously in the same format as input. Standard image

formats are support by default ... handling Wide Dynamic Range sensor input ..."

 

And their white paper:

 

http://www.apical-imaging.com/UserFiles/File/datasheets/iridix_6_core(dsc)_datasheet.pdf

 

Also read about adaptive ISO from the horse's mouth - Apical Ltd:

 

http://www.apical-imaging.com/adiso

 

http://www.apical-imaging.com/UserFiles/ad-iso.pdf

 

Cool stuff, the modern age pf photography.

[c_anindya]

I mainly shoot in raw but I have found in some cases DRO does quite good work. Like I had tried in a scenario few days ago where sun was setting the sky was beautiful but the grass below were completely dark if I had the keep the sky as it was. Then I switched to DRO level 3 and it did work beautiful. Off course in that process the noise went up a bit and horizon was bit overexposed than I would have liked but i quite liked it. So I think if little bit more noise is acceptable then DRO is quite a handy tool.

[liquidstereo]

I'm a huge fan of DRO. I shoot 90% RAW but still I find it quite useful.

[liquidstereo]

I'm a huge fan of DRO. I shoot 90% RAW but still I find it quite useful.

 

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3033/2606557276_8097e20e1c_b.jpg