ART Why not integrate GND filters into the camera?

michael

Florida Man, Esq.
Dec 21, 2001
112,589
The ether
So why can't the processor in the computer tell the sensor to have a higher ISO on one part of the sensor than the other? If the sensor is made up of independent receptors (whatever they're called), it would seem that they could be programmed for different sensitivities..so you could tell the upper portion of the sensor to be less sensitive than the bottom half of the sensor and go shoot a sunset or wahtever?

from reading, that's all the ND filters do is reduce the exposure and a graduated ND just does it for part of the frame..so wtf?

tell me if this is as stupid as i think it probably is..
 
TS
TS
michael

michael

Florida Man, Esq.
Dec 21, 2001
112,589
The ether
cuz it's so easy in LR and LR does it so well
fuck on camera
how does one do it in LR? i thought you needed the actual image to be less exposed in some places and more exposed in others..you cant really do that in LR, that i know of..

or are you TROLLING ME*@#(*@#
 

Bukka

Active Member
Sep 14, 2009
3,137
Calgary, AB
What if you only needed the top corner at an angle like so /, and then in another shot you needed it at an angle not as steep...but you needed it to be 2/3's into the frame at that angle. or what about the way each indiviual lens will send light to the sensor? You think any one would want to go through all the trouble when you can just buy a reasonable GND set for like 100 bucks.

Imagine the jump in cost of the camera for them to go through the R&D to have such a feature.
 

Wobistdu

how does one do it in LR? i thought you needed the actual image to be less exposed in some places and more exposed in others..you cant really do that in LR, that i know of..

or are you TROLLING ME*@#(*@#

not trolling

not sure how i can explain. google LR GND tutorial. it's pretty easy once you try it. i discovered it by accident
 

Bukka

Active Member
Sep 14, 2009
3,137
Calgary, AB
LR GND

image was slightly under-exposed.
When I boosted exposure, it obviously blew out the sky, so I used the LR GND to even out exposure between the sky and land/water so I could have reasonable exposure of both parts of the image.
There was some contrast brushing done to the clouds as well to make them a little more dramatic than when just the LR GND was used.

Mind you, I'd much rather use a real GND set.

2980080693_cca81064b2_z.jpg


Don't really have more examples....for some reason using the GND in LR fucking rapes my computer resources.
 
Last edited:

jsmonet

egg
Sep 20, 2002
1,328
so cali
mainly because you then have to either allow for dynamic placement of the cutoff, or restrict placement to a rigid position that compromises either composition or efficacy.

get a fucking filter holder you dork :p
 
TS
TS
michael

michael

Florida Man, Esq.
Dec 21, 2001
112,589
The ether
You meant... Getting it right with precision optics will always be better than in-camera software picture-styles
in my mind, it's not software..its not CHANGING the picture after it's been taken.. its actually changing the sensor to simply have a lesser ISO sensitivity on part of the sensor for a certain picture..there's no processing of teh picture -- it's how the picture would actually be captured..
 
TS
TS
michael

michael

Florida Man, Esq.
Dec 21, 2001
112,589
The ether
mainly because you then have to either allow for dynamic placement of the cutoff, or restrict placement to a rigid position that compromises either composition or efficacy.

get a fucking filter holder you dork :p
there could be a tolerance and the camera could find the blown out parts that you want the ND to be applied, i'm sure..
 

Marix

OT Supporter
May 23, 2006
27,969
You get a GND of sorts by getting fancier cameras that can shoot 1/8000 shutter speed, or ISO50 or lower.

Then you can shoot wide open in daylight, or close down the aperture for a longer exposure. But if you want any seriously longer exposures, you'll still need a proper ND filter.

My understanding is that, every camera has a base ISO. And every ISO above that is basically an extension of that ISO - i.e. ramping up the sensitivity of the baseline ISO. Many current camera base ISO is ISO200, allowing them to amplify that and get higher ISO performance. Since there isn't much difference in quality between iso100 and iso200, manufacturers would rather get some high ISO performance out of their cameras instead. Then sometimes you have a lower ISO option, but at the cost of some dynamic range. My a850 is like this. It goes down to ISO100 but at slight loss of highlight recovery in raw. I imagine there's an electronic limitation to how little sensitivity (basically voltage) you can give the sensor and have it still work properly.

But I think graduating the exposure would be too difficult and too much menu circle jerking, since you'd want it in a different place every time. By the time you've fannied on with all of that, you might as well use a proper filter or just edit it in lightroom or photoshop
 

Users who are viewing this thread

About Us

  • Please do not post anything that violates any Local, State, Federal or International Laws. Your privacy is protected. You have the right to be forgotten. Site funded by advertising, link monetization and member support.
OT v15.8.1 Copyright © 2000-2022 Offtopic.com
Served by fu.offtopic.com

Online statistics

Members online
363
Guests online
41
Total visitors
404

Forum statistics

Threads
369,586
Messages
16,897,181
Members
86,875
Latest member
Theodor