Schwarzschild effect

Pages 1 [2]
  "Digital images do not suffer from reciprocity law failure. However because of such low resolution compared with film, highlight areas will burn out much more prominently in the image."

Thanks Ed, this explains what I was seeing quite nicely.  I guess I should call it 'High Key noise" as opposed to the 'Low Key noise" that shows up looking like lint in the shadows.

mike

P.S.  Travis, from what I gathered in my short test, all you need to look out for in a very long exposure is getting the high key noise, or snow if you like because it does look a little like a snowfall.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2007, 06:31:20 PM by MikeE »
Logged

The smart person learns from their own mistakes.
The Wise person learns from the mistakes of others!

Here's the science  Huh? :

Testing the Reciprocity Law
in Digital Photography
Francisco Martínez-Verdúa, Jaume Pujolb, and Pascual Capillac
a Dept. of Optics, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain
b Center for Development of Sensors, Instrumentation and Systems,
Dept. of Optics and Optometry, Technical University of Catalonia
Terrassa, Barcelona, Spain
c Dept. of Optics, University of Valencia, Burjassot, Valencia, Spain
Abstract
An experimental and theoretical methodology based on
spectroradiometric measures is proposed to test if the
reciprocity law is verified in digital photography. Taking
into account that the spectral exposure H(λ) is proportional
to the spectral radiance Le(λ) of the object and the photosite
integration time t of the electronic shutter time and
inversely proportional to the f-number N of the zoom-lens,
this radiometric law declares that identical values of
spectral exposure yield identical responses even if the fnumber
N and/or the exposure time t change. Historically,
the photochemical materials present some deviations to
this law, but it is not clear if this law holds for the image
sensors of digital cameras. The test is based on the new
concept of the opto-electronic spectral function (OECSF),
that is, the empirical relationship between the normalized
digital output level of the camera and the spectral exposure
obtained by a monochromator set-up. The transition curve
that fits the OECSFs in the color channels for our digital
image capture device is the sigmoid function with four
parameters. Varying exclusively the f-number N, the
OECSFs in some irradiance scale exposure series (Le(λ)
and N free, t fixed) overlap in any color channel. The same
occurs with time scale exposure series (Le(λ) and t free, N
fixed) or mixed scale exposure series (Le(λ), N and t free).
These results indicate that this radiometric law, unlike in
photochemical photography, is verified in digital
photography with monochromatic light.
Introduction
For a given color stimulus, there are some parameters that
can alter the digital output data of a digital camera. The
input to the digital image capture device is always the
spectral radiance Le(λ) measured in W/sr·m2. The first
parameter that can influence the light reaching the image
sensor is the f-number (f/#) or lens aperture N of the zoomlens.
This is an optical parameter that denotes the value of
the entrance pupil diameter of the optical system that
focuses the object on the image sensor. In this step, other
parameters condition the opto-electronic response of the
system. The structural design of the RGB sensors or color
imager architecture is the second. The exposure or
photosite integration time t, the total time period during
which the photosites of an image sensor are able to
integrate the light from the scene to form an analogue
image, is the third. The current technology for digital
camera design handles a wide variety of color
architectures: 3 CCD sensors with block of 3 RGB dichroic
prisms, RGB or CMY stripe color filters, etc. Since these
parameters act before or simultaneously with the raw optoelectronic
conversion, it is adequate to denote them as the
extrinsic parameters of a digital camera (Fig. 1).
Figure 1. Scheme of the extrinsic and intrinsic parameters that
can alter in a non-controlled and/or controlled way the raw optoelectronic
conversion of a digital camera.
At this stage, the radiometric input has been converted
into a raw analogue signal about several microvolts (μV).
To become a digital output level (DOL) the analogue
IS&T's 2003 PICS Conference
512  More to come......
Logged

Ed Shapiro
The Hintonburg Studio
Suite 201  78 Hinton Avenue North
Ottawa, Ontario CANADA  K1Y 0Z8
613-792-4837    Email:  edshapiro@rogers.com

signal goes through multitude of electronic stages, the
more relevant being the video gain, the white balance and
the parameters (gain and offset) of the analog-to-digital
converter (ADC). These parameters can influence a
posteriori the raw opto-electronic conversion and, because
they are built-in parameters, we may denote them as the
intrinsic parameters of a digital camera (Fig. 1).
Nevertheless, these intrinsic parameters, all of them of
electronic type, can be numerous and then they require
careful control. For example, if video gain is selected by
control menu in automatic mode, we lose control of the
global generation process of the digital output from the
radiometric input, because the digital image capture device
will change freely this process. This means that, if we wish
to calibrate the device, we must use a characterization
model for each video gain value because, with a fixed
radiometric input, the device gives different output data.
This prevents for instance the determination of the raw
RGB color space associated to the spectral sensitivities of
the digital camera.
The Reciprocity Law in Digital Photography
From the former discussion, the key to control the
input-output process in a digital camera is to know and to
control all the sub-processes that play a role before, during
and after the raw opto-electronic conversion. For example,
independently of the choice of extrinsic and intrinsic
parameters, the incident photon rate1,2 nν(λ) on the image
sensor in direct angle incidence in an electronic or digital
still picture camera is:
( ) ( )
( )
τ (λ) (λ)
+
ν λ = π λ λ 2 LENS ATM
LENS
2
SENSOR
4 1 '
T
N m
L A t
hc
n e (1)
where λ is wavelength, h is Planck's constant, c is the
speed of light in the medium, Le(λ) is the spectral radiance
of the object or target, ASENSOR is the effective or irradiated
sensor area, t is the photosite integration time of the
shutter, N is the f-number of the zoom-lens, m'LENS is the
lateral magnification of the zoom-lens, τLENS(λ) is the
spectral transmittance of the zoom-lens and TATM(λ) is the
spectral transmittance of the atmosphere.
Thus, the spectral exposure H(λ) is expressed as:
( ) (λ)
λ
λ = nν
hc
H (2)
The simplest way to understand the opto-electronic
conversion that takes place in a digital still camera is to
express the spectral exposure H(λ) as proportional to the
spectral radiance Le(λ) of the target and to the photosite
integration time t, and inversely proportional to the square
of the f-number N. If we take into account that spectral
transmittance of the atmosphere ΤATM(λ) in the visible
range is one and that, for most zoom-lenses, spectral
transmittance τLENS(λ) is approximately constant in the
visible range with a value also close to one, the previous
expression becomes:
( ) ( )
( ) 2 LENS ATM
LENS
SENSOR
2 4 1 '
, T
m
A
t k
N
L
H k e τ
+
λ = λ = π (3)
From Eq. (3) and independently of considering
exposure processes with spectral or gray scale patterns, it
seems that different combinations of spectral radiance
Le(λ), f-number N and photosite integration or exposure
time t will provide equivalent exposures with identical
camera responses. If the spectral exposures are equal, H1(λ)
= H2(λ), then, according to Eq. 3:
2
1
2
1
2
2 1 ,
t
t
N
N
m L m L e e 



 


= ⋅ = (4)
Note than, whereas for m equal to one the values of
radiance that yield equal exposures will be equal
(equivalent exposure series), for m ≠ 1 the values will be
different (non equivalent exposure series).
This argumentation is known as reciprocity law, either
in Photochemical (classical) or Digital Photography. Even
though it seems well established historically that AgX3-7
and other photosensible8 materials present some deviations
from this law, it is still to be determined whether or not the
same law holds in the image sensors of digital cameras.
Although concerned with the shutter in the image capture,
the ISO 516 normative9 has been devised by the WG4
(Mechanical Elements for Photography), and not the
WG18 (Electronic Still Picture Imaging). Therefore, it is
basically a revision of the ISO 516:1986 standard applied
to the electro-mechanical shutters, and not for the
electronically shuttered sensors, which are coupled to the
image sensor and are the most widely used at present.
There is no reference in the current ISO norms to the
reciprocity law problem in Digital Photography, which
implicitly assume that this law is not verified under any
circumstance. This is valid too for the ISO 14524
normative10 because the opto-electronic conversion
functions (OECFs) associated to different N or t values are
not equivalent. Although it is well established that the
reciprocity law does not hold with white light, maybe it is
verified using monochromatic light. So, it is valid to
extrapolate the OECF concept to OECSF (opto-electronic
conversion spectral function) as the starting point of the
study of the applicability of the reciprocity law in Digital
Photography.
Experimental Set-Up
Figure 2 shows the experimental set-up, which can also be
used to obtain the spectral sensitivities11 of any camera.
Light coming from a broadband light source (LS, Osram
HQI T 250 W Daylight Hg vapor fluorescent lamp) passes
through a monochromator (MC, CVIS Laser Digikröm
DK240) to produce a monochromatic target over the opal
glass (OG). The target radiance Le(λ) was measured by a
tele-spectroradiometer (TSRM, Photo Research PR-650
SpectraColorimeter) that could be removed to allow the
IS&T's 2003 PICS Conference
513 More to come....

Logged

Ed Shapiro
The Hintonburg Studio
Suite 201  78 Hinton Avenue North
Ottawa, Ontario CANADA  K1Y 0Z8
613-792-4837    Email:  edshapiro@rogers.com

There is tons more but I will cut to the chase right here:

values were selected: 15 ms (PH = 234), 17.5 ms (PH =
273), 19.5 ms (PH = 304) and 19.9 ms (PH = 310). Fig. 7
shows the OECSFs corresponding to these four exposure
series (Le(650), N = 2.8, tmenu) together those derived
previously with N = 2.8 and shutter times tmenu equal to 20
ms (offset value), 10 and 5 ms. Careful analysis of this
figure indicates that all the OECSFs associated with
spectral exposure series with shutter times 5, 10, 15, 17.5,
19.5 and 19.9 ms are shifted to the right when compared
with offset shutter time t0 = 20 ms. Unless we still consider
hypothesis "1" and admit that there is such thing as a
threshold time and that it would be inferior to 0.1 ms, but
we can not prove its existence because that PH = 310 is the
last integer value of the PH scale that controls the
manufacturer. Therefore, it seems quite evident that
hypothesis "2" is demonstrated. It is as if the shutter time t
controlled through the specifications (Table 1) of the
manufacturer were not the real photosite integration or
exposure time that must be taken into account in the initial
equations of this work. Then if this were true, using the
correct relationship between the time tmenu for electronic
control and the real exposure time t, all the OECSFs of Fig.
4, 6 and 7 would be overlapped. This will be proved in
other work.
Figure 7. OECSFs of the R channel under spectral exposure
series of λ = 650 nm, varying t as 20 ms (solid circle), 19.9 ms
(solid triangle up), 19.5 ms (solid triangle down), 17.5 ms (solid
square), 15 ms (hollow triangle down), 10 ms (hollow triangle
up) and 5 ms (hollow square) with the same f -number N = 2.8.
Conclusions
An experimental and theoretical methodology based on
spectroradiometric measures, valid for any digital image
capture device, has been proposed to test if the reciprocity
law is fulfilled in digital photography. Unlike in
photochemical photography, this radiometric law was
fulfilled for irradiance and time scale exposure series.
Therefore, independently from the wavelength-channel
selection, for different combinations of spectral radiance, fnumber
and exposure time, the digital response will be the
same because the device is sensitive exclusively to the
incident spectral exposure, regardless of how that spectral
exposure is obtained. The only topic not clarified was that
the relationship provided by the manufacturer between the
electronic shutter and the real exposure times is not correct
to verify the reciprocity law. It would be interesting to
know the real relationship between both time variables.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Comisión
Interministerial de Ciencia y Tecnología (CICYT) (Spain)
under grant TAP99-0856.
References
1. G.C. Holst, CCD Arrays, cameras and displays, SPIE,
Bellingham, WA, 1998, pg. 33-36.
2. E.F. Zalewski, Radiometry and Photometry, Handbook of
Optics, OSA, New York, 1995, vol. 1, chap. 24.
3. J.C. Dainty & R. Shaw, Image Science, principles, analysis
and evaluation of photographic-type imaging process,
Academic Press, London, 1974, pg. 35, 47.
4. J.F. Hamilton, Reciprocity failure and the intermittency
effect, The Theory of the Photographic Process, MacMillan
Publishing, New York, 1977, pg. 133-145.
5. B.H. Carroll, G.C. Higgins & T.H. James, Introduction to
photographic theory: The silver halide process, John Wiley
& Sons, New York, 1980, pg. 13, 137.
6. C.N. Proudfoot, Handbook of Photographic Science and
Engineering, IS&T, Springfield, VA, 1997, pg. 557.
7. R.W.G. Hunt, The Reproduction of Colour, 5th ed., Fountain
Press, Kingston-upon-Thames, 1995, pg. 282.
8. K.M. Johnson, L. Hesselink & J.W. Goodman, Appl. Opt.,
23, 218 (1984).
9. ISO 516: 1999, Photography – Camera shutters – Timing,
ISO, Geneva, 1999.
10. ISO 14524: 1999, Photography – Electronic still picture
cameras – Methods for measuring opto-electronic
conversion functions (OECFs), ISO, Geneva, 1999.
11. F. Martínez-Verdú, J. Pujol & P. Capilla, J. Imaging Sci.
and Technol., 46, 15 (2002).
12. F. Martínez-Verdú, et al., Spectroradiometric
characterization of the spectral linearity of a conventional
digital camera, Proc. SPIE, 3648, pg. 280 (1999).
Biography
Francisco Martínez-Verdú received his BS in Physics
from the University of Valencia in 1993 and a Ph.D. in
Physics from Technical University of Catalonia at Terrassa
(Barcelona) in 2001. Since 1998 he teaches Vision
Sciences at the School of Optics & Optometry in the
University of Alicante (Spain). His work is primarily
focused on Color Imaging (device calibration and
characterization, color management) and Industrial
Colorimetry. He is a member of the IS&T and the Spanish
Optics Society. E-mail: verdu@ua.es.
IS&T's 2003 PICS Conference
517
Logged

Ed Shapiro
The Hintonburg Studio
Suite 201  78 Hinton Avenue North
Ottawa, Ontario CANADA  K1Y 0Z8
613-792-4837    Email:  edshapiro@rogers.com

Whew!!  That was one tough read!  If I read what I think I just read then we can safely put Digital reciprocity to rest.

The question now is that if a long exposure will give -what are we to call this- snow/HKnoise/whatever, Will it also cause degradation using an 8 stop ND filter?  Not that I was going to spend several hundred dollars on the one in this same forum but what a pain if it makes your photos worse due to the snow?

(Next they'll probably come up with rabbit ears for them Wink)

Also, were they talking about being unable to calibrate the sensor except using the most basic setting?

Good thing we have analog eyes, eh?  LOL

mike

P.S.  For those of you that don't remember rabbit ears, back in the days of broadcast TV (before there was cable) if you were getting bad reception you had to adjust the antenna.  If you had the type of antenna that sat on top of your TV they were called rabbit ears.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2007, 10:53:02 PM by MikeE »
Logged

The smart person learns from their own mistakes.
The Wise person learns from the mistakes of others!

Ed, that was that tough reading, I just read the conclusion and understood it. I hope you don't mind.  Grin

Leen
Logged


Leen-

It's nice to see that the work of Schwazchild is still around, in the minds of scientists, after all theses years.  That report from Spain, was actually 6 pages long but the conclusion is the important thing to grasp.  By the way, the research was commissioned by Cannon.

Mike-

For all intents and purposes there is no correlation between reciprocity failure in film emulsions and noise in digital equipment.  The noise and resulting color distortion or "graininess" comes form internal sources within the camera's circuitry when there is insufficient light for the camera to deliver decent image quality.  In the experiments, the actual power, in microvolts, that is photo-electronically generated by the sensor circuitry is measured and a threshold voltage is mentioned as to when the image begins to suffer when there is not enough light.  It is only coincidental that the effects of this condition resemble those of poorly exposed color negatives in therms of D.max failure and color crossover in film photography.

I hope this helps.  Although matters like theses are quite esoteric in day to day photography, they are very interesting.  I have always had in interest in the science of photography and electronics.  Every now and again this knowledge helps me solve practical problems.  From a totally practical point of view, the electronic theory does run parallel to the old film theories.  You could push film by altering development procedures but there comes a time when the results will suffer from a loss of quality such as severe lack of shadow detail, enormous grain, fog from over-development, and even reticulation from keeping the film in a wet condition for a longer that normal time.  With all theses pitfalls, you get some kind of an image.  These same thing applies to a noisy image with strange color balance- you still get a somewhat usable image which can be electronically enhanced in Photoshop- the bride and groom will still see their ring exchange even if everything isn't perfect but they will still enjoy reliving the moment.

Ed Shapiro

Logged

Ed Shapiro
The Hintonburg Studio
Suite 201  78 Hinton Avenue North
Ottawa, Ontario CANADA  K1Y 0Z8
613-792-4837    Email:  edshapiro@rogers.com

Thanks Ed S..

I guess I need to learn to better communicate what I am trying to say (perhaps I shouldn't try to be funny in a serious conversation).  What I was trying to say in my second post in this thread was that in fact there was no reciprocity and what my camera was doing was was showing white splotches.  You found what I was trying to describe in your 5:37:28pm post,

"Digital images do not suffer from reciprocity law failure. However because of such low resolution compared with film, highlight areas will burn out much more prominently in the image."

which was blown highlights. I think that my trying to be humorous in pointing out that I was wrong in my first post is probably what started the misunderstanding and my continued use of the word noise exacerbated it.

Thanks again and good work gathering all the information!

mike
Logged

The smart person learns from their own mistakes.
The Wise person learns from the mistakes of others!

Ed, that is why I admire you, you are always trying to learn new things or to share your vast knowledge to other people. I am sure a lot of people will agree with me.

Leen
Logged


Pages 1 [2]