[Joe Bloggs]

I get that you're trying to illustrate a point here, but I don't see how the second picture is "fake". As far as I can see, the first picture doesn't even cover the whole gamut with its histogram, and even the foilage in the second picture is a featureless mush. And its histogram isn't cliped either, so I don't know about any information being thrown away Even the jpg file size is larger...

Unfortunately, histograms don't work like FR graphs. It shows what was captured by the camera in the photo. You can easily overexpose or adjust the digital processing to hit a wider color representation. Whereas a FR graph would more show what could be captured by the camera. The equivalent would be those gamut graphs that show the full gamut and then what each standard (eg Adobe RGB 1998 or sRGB) or device (eg Canon 5D MKIII) can display or use or capture.

So there are a few points here to consider:

1. Digital color is an additive medium, so you start with red green blue and you combine them to approach white because you are combining light. Whereas say acrylic paint (physical color if you will) is a subtractive medium, adding colors moves toward black.

2. Given point 1, if you have a digital photo that is dark and you tweak it with software to "brighten" it, the software literally needs to "add color" to attain what is closer to white. What this translates to is additional instructions in the file for the monitor to use more of it's color light(s) to display lighter colors. That would account for the increased filesize. Unless it's just a white canvas, which is likely a simplified more efficient instruction.

3. Natural scenes (ie real life) don't necessarily have to cover the whole color gamut or all values. Take for example a dark red card on an almost black background. Your histogram of a true to life photo will accurately show the a red bump on the left side of the histogram and no information on the right because there just isn't that level of light intensity in the scene. So what James was getting at and I alluded to before is that his first image is more true to life based on his being able to see the scene personally than the second image which he artificially edited for sharpness and contrast and brightness. He could have also overexposed the shot to get a potentially more even histogram but that wouldn't be accurate.

Translating it to sonic terms, nature is the musician, James's eyes are the producer and the first image shows what headphones or earphones James used to create the final mix that he felt best represented what the musician played would best recreate.

I think that last part is mostly accurate...

The thing is, an LCD covers only about 9 stops of dynamic range while most cameras now cover more than that--and the human eye covers up to 14 stops of DR, so representing most scenes with a realistic level of contrast requires tone mapping of some sort.

The closest analogue to tone mapping in audio would be multiband compression... :tongue_smile:

Without tone mapping

With tone mapping

I wrote the Photoshop script for this tone mapping algorithm myself

I must say, I am used to having my photos much more punchy than anything james posted :blink: His "processed" shot looks flatter than my "unprocessed" shot, which is output straight from ACR with more conservative settings than default--and even from default settings you're expected to punch up the photos yourself... :blink:

 

[james444]

I think that last part is mostly accurate...

 
Mostly accurate and better worded than I could have done myself, thanks!

 
Minor addition and just as an example, my editing caused some neighboring pixels with subtly different color / brightness in the original picture to carry the same color / brightness after the tweak. This amounts to irreversible deleting of information (and you don't need to blow out the highlights to do that).
 
The jpg size is irrelevant. The first file is an out-of-camera jpg, and you can open any jpg, re-compress it at a lower rate (without even changing a pixel) and it will become larger.

 

[james444]

I must say, I am used to having my photos much more punchy than anything james posted

His "processed" shot looks flatter than my "unprocessed" shot, which is output straight from ACR with more conservative settings than default--and even from default settings you're expected to punch up the photos yourself...

 
Love your tone mapping script!

 
That said, I picked this photo to illustrate a point and not to angle for compliments in the photo thread.

In fact it was shot through the window of a moving train on a gloomy day, so what would you expect?
 
FWIW, I just compressed the second shot to about 2/3 of the first one's size and bet that most people will still think it's more detailed:
 

 

[vwinter]

   
Love your tone mapping script!

 

 
+1
 

The thing is, an LCD covers only about 9 stops of dynamic range while most cameras now cover more than that--and the human eye covers up to 14 stops of DR, so representing most scenes with a realistic level of contrast requires tone mapping of some sort.

The closest analogue to tone mapping in audio would be multiband compression...

Without tone mapping

With tone mapping

I wrote the Photoshop script for this tone mapping algorithm myself

I must say, I am used to having my photos much more punchy than anything james posted

His "processed" shot looks flatter than my "unprocessed" shot, which is output straight from ACR with more conservative settings than default--and even from default settings you're expected to punch up the photos yourself...

 
Some scenes just don't have that much dynamic range and making them pop when they shouldn't seems a bit odd, unless you are going for an artistic angle, which is my angle.
 
Really do like the results of your script. A bit punchier than life maybe =) I don't know how accurate they are to what i would have seen if i was there but they do look good and if my screen only does a part of what the real scene would have in range, then it's still not exactly there i guess.
 
I personally take the limitations of photography from an artistic angle and don't really care for true to life as much as a care about the result i am looking for. Most of my photos are low key because i like it. I appreciate the heck out of high key photography but it was never something i was good at. And i guess being so used to photography and its limitations, HDR images just look off to me lol. But your adjustments are pretty spiffy 

 

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Thanks guys :tongue_smile: I've placed an updated version of my script in my dpreview thread with instructions:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/36868711

As you can see it's a pretty old script, and runs for a rather long time since I don't know enough to write my own plugin and am limited to photoshop actions only

 

[vwinter]

Thanks guys :tongue_smile: I've placed an updated version of my script in my dpreview thread with instructions:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/36868711

As you can see it's a pretty old script, and runs for a rather long time since I don't know enough to write my own plugin and am limited to photoshop actions only

Thanks Joe! master of EQ of all shapes and sizes
And Happy New Year!

 

[mdiogofs]

I just got these now.
 
I wanted to try forward mids but I'm sensing it's really not my thing. They're too much in your face.
 
Sound quality wise they are very interesting for a single DD.
 
Well, I'll find them a kind of music or bands that I could use with that forwards mids. I guess...
 
 
EDIT: BTW, the cable is quite...not good lol

 

[james444]

  I just got these now.
 
I wanted to try forward mids but I'm sensing it's really not my thing. They're too much in your face.

 
I wouldn't call them mid-forward though. Their tuning is quite similar to the K3003 with reference filters, which are considered neutral, or even slightly v-shaped.
 
A slight bump in lower treble and a more pronounced spike at 7kHz in comparison to the AKGs, but not mid-forward in my book.

 

[vwinter]

I wouldn't call them mid-forward though. Their tuning is quite similar to the K3003 with reference filters, which are considered neutral, or even slightly v-shaped.

A slight bump in lower treble and a more pronounced spike at 7kHz in comparison to the AKGs, but not mid-forward in my book.

They kind of just seem a bit midforward because the bass lacks a bit of weight iirc.

Compared to the AKG there, the 3-4dB bump at 2k would probably make it sound relatively mid forward, given the sensitivity in that area.

 

[mdiogofs]

You are right. I was listening to female vocal mainly. And it ticks the boxes, I believe, of the graph @H20Fidelity posted in A71 thread just before. Thanks for you both
 

 

[Inks]

K06 is not mid forward at all, if anything it's a bit v-shaped. My TTPOD T1E in comparison is a lot more mid forward.

 

[mdiogofs]

Anyone with the DN-2000 that wants to do a short comparison with KC06? I believe they could have quite similar sound signature...

 

[voicemaster]

If you like the sound signature of kc06, but wanting a more sparkly, airy high and tighter bass, look for Zero Audio Doppio.

 

[Zelda]

  Anyone with the DN-2000 that wants to do a short comparison with KC06? I believe they could have quite similar sound signature...

the KC06 won't have the DN2000 strongest bass anytime soon. a well amped 06A might get close though

 

[Selenium]

I has them! Got them in gold for a bit more than $40. Really digging them so far. A lot of other 'phones which have this sort of midrange/upper-midrange emphasis and overall brightness also struggle with harshness and sibilance but these do not.