The science of photography & videography

I've been avid in the sense that I've been quite interested in photography and videography. Believe it or not, there really is a science behind these topics. You can learn much, much more about such topics than you probably realize. They are topics which can offer lifetime learning. Let's talk about photography first. The reason why this topic is so interesting to many, is that it's made up of many aspects, if one can call it that. It's interesting to learn the relationships between exposure, depth of field, contrast, etc. I've been learning about this topic for quite while, and I've learned many interesting things which probably most people wither don't know, or don't realize. One of the most interesting things about photography is what's known as dynamic range, or DR. This is basically a measure of contrast in an image. It's a measure of the difference of light and dark tones which can be captured in a single scene at once. So, how does this quality of cameras compare to that of the DR of human eyesight. Well, generally speaking, modern SLR cameras record a DR of about twelve stops of exposure. In comparison, the human eye has a DR of about 16. However, the DR which can be achieved by human eyesight may be much higher. For example, if you stare at a static scene for thirty minutes or so, you'll notice that the dark areas now appear lighter, while highlights appear darker than they did initially. So, what determines how much DR a camera has? I've done quite a bit of research into this. It turns out, that there is a clear relationship between DR, sensor size, and resolution. The higher the pixel density of a camera, usually translates into two things. Less DR, and lower light sensitivity. On the other hand, higher pixel density also means more fine detail is able to be captured in a single image. There are ways of increasing/decreasing an image's DR. However, to increase DR, you will need to take at least three images with varying exposure in order to make the process work, then use a program such as PS. The less that the images vary in terms of exposure, the more gradual the tonal transitions will be in the final image. This is why I like to change the exposure manually. However, this of course, does present problems in many situations. If objects move between images, this can cause artifacts in the final image. These are otherwise known as 'ghosting'. Sometimes I like to think about what I wish my dream camera would be like. If I could design my own and make it become a reality, I think I would design a camera with a large sensor, such as APS-C or full frame. Then I would have the resolution be somewhat low, like only five megapixels. Then I would have the camera be able to achieve in-camera superresolution, or SR. This would definitely be the way to go to make perfect high dynamic range, or HDR, images, as there would be no worry of uneven tonal transitions. As for now, I guess there's no way to design you own camera, at least as I know of. Anyway, such low resolution would allow for pretty fast photo bursts. Also, it would cut down on costs. Of course, this would be challenging if the scene I'm trying to capture isn't static. However, I think such camera technology would be basically like a paradigm shift. It's not a far-fetched idea. It's just that no one seems to want to develop such technology.
In astrophotography, low light capabilities often compete with the need for resolution. However, low pixel density is key to creating successful astrophotos. You can leave your camera out to take a longer exposed image, and still unallowing for trailing. So, why are bigger pixels more light sensitive? Because larger pixels can be thought of as "light buckets". The bigger the pixels, the more light they can be filled with. Many people think that upgrading a camera means they will achieve better photography. However, this is probably far from true, at least in some ways. One of main reasons for why this is a myth, is because overall, slr cameras don't produce images that are much better in every way as opposed to compact cameras. Yes, it's true. SLR cameras may be able to capture a significantly wider DR, are more light sensitive, and have the abilities to create very shallow dof (Depth of field) as well as lossless image compression. However... several aspects of compact cameras make them good competitors in the camera market against SLRs. For example. in macro photography, you just can't get such a wide depth of field with SLRs as opposed to compacts... you're best would be using the smallest aperture. This comes with the cost of image quality. And in the modern world, many compact cameras already have manual controls. They also have high quality lenses which have been rivaling expensive SLR lenses for quite some time. In addition, in recent times, manufacturers have been able to include fairly large sensors in compact cameras. In fact, Sony has been able to put a full frame sensor in their RX-100R! Combine this with lossless image quality, and you have pretty much the same technology as you'd find in SLRs. Except these cameras can fit in your pocket. I still wish that someday manufacturers will include the features found in advanced software, such as PS, into their cameras. Especially since my PS software is gone from my old computer for good. In addition to the abilities featured previously, I hope that more cameras have the focus stacking ability. Virtually everything which can be learned about photography relates somehow to video making. Also, many of these things are helpful in the formation of other forms of art. One of these things that I've found are most evident would be perspective. Perhaps nothing is more intriguing than this aspect of photography alone. It does a great deal in determining the success of a photo. In order to draw attention to a subject, generally it's not a good idea to include the subject in the middle of the frame. In fact, an image is more successful if the subject of focus is placed to the right, as opposed to the left. Wait, but why? Well, people usually tend to look from left to right. Therefore, their vision will end up to the right, where the subject is located. One of the things that are truly powerful in composition are leading lines. In order to draw attention to a subject, it maybe important to include elements such as a river, a row of rocks, or a crevice, so as long as these elements form lines, leading to the subject itself. Combining these elements make the composition even more powerful.

Contrast

Contrast is about equally as interesting as composition, as it can make a photo much more interesting. Usually when you think about contrast, you think of light and shade. However, there are still more kinds of contrast, ones which you may not realize. I've noticed this because I've read about images that combine water with rocks, and I've seen images in which these other kinds of contrast are used.  Images of water include rivers many times. What makes rivers an interesting subject to photograph, is that they move. In a long exposure, the smoothness of a flowing river can many times be contrasted by the roughness of rocks. This contrast between textures, however, can be much more evident during the winter, as the rocky texture contrasts against shiny, glassy smooth ice. The tones of light reflecting off of ice create for very smooth reflections. Compare this to rocks. Another form of contrast is that of one created by complimentary colors. Ever wonder why is it that many times, when people order food, green entrees come with red? These colors are on opposite sides of the color wheel, making them appear vibrant against each other. Perhaps another form of contrast could be used in order to show depth, or perspective, in an image. This is the relationship between large objects and smaller objects. For example, in the morning, when the light creates large shadows, you can show the perspective of a vast landscape by having a person stand relatively close to the camera. Then, you can include trees at varying distances away from the camera. If you have tall trees close to the camera, and the same tall trees are also included in the distant background, there you have it. In this instance, shadow also plays a role in enhancing the size of objects. This brings us to yet another form of contrast, which is a lot like previous ones discussed here. Have you ever looked at a sunrise, or sunset, and thought, how does this appear so magnificent? Well, the answer is this... Many times, a sunrise/set, include various types of light, especially if you're observing a specific kind of scene. For example, a rocky shoreline, above which dramatic clouds hover, and sunlit sand creates various shades of color. Let's add by saying that there is foliage in front of the sun. There are a couple of main reasons for why images of such scenes can be so magnificent. One reason is that it's possible to capture an extremely wide DR using post processing. The other reason is that, again, this scene includes a wide variety of light. The foliage creates transmitted light, while the rocks create hard light. The hard light is contrasted by the smooth shades found in the sand. If there is light being reflected back towards the sand, this phenomena can create some truly great tones of color. For example, if there is orange coming from the sun, and behind the scene there are tall green trees, then these two colors may be blended in the midst of the sandy shades. The clouds, just like the foliage, can also create transmitted light. This can be beneficial, as the color of the light won't be green as in the foliage. As is with the sand, the interplay of colors in the clouds can be captivating as well, with colors such as pink, purple, and orange mixing. Believe it or not, if you use PS, and you're idea is to create images to the likeness of film, in some instance PS can do a strikingly good job at it. And, in fact, if you can learn enough about PS then chances are that you won't need any film simulation software at all. Being a member of the popular website DPreview.com, I learn a wealth of information and the site is full of interesting discussions. Probably most of the members know a whole lot about this stuff. Much more, that is, than an average person would.

Increasing resolution

You don't need a 25 megapixel camera in order to achieve images of such resolution. This is a fact, and it's quite possible to achieve such results when photographing static scenes, landscapes in particular. Basically, the process involves the formation of separate panoramas. These panoramas are then stitched together into what many like to label a mosaic. The great thing about this process too, is that it can done using software which is totally free. The program I've found which does a great job in this is Microsoft ICE. In fact, one a mosaic is completed in ICE, the program then shows how large the photo file is, and how many pixels it is made up of. The good thing is that it'll be alright if the source images result in uneven edges, as ICE has an auto crop command which makes use of the largest possible image area for the largest resolution. Use lossless compression, throw it into a program like PS, then use ICE. The final image is likely to be nothing short of breathtaking. In fact, I've quite a few files like that waiting for me to process them. The only problem now is that I don't think I'll be able to retrieve PS from my old computer. Not for the time being, at least. Until I can get all of my technical issues solved, I can't post the link to my Flickr page in order to show my progress. I think it's likely that there is a, what I like to call, resolution limit to cameras in general. The reason being that it's not the sensors or the internal components which will fail to deliver ever higher resolution. Instead, it has to do with optics. In order for cameras to keep achieving ever higher resolution, or more megapixels, lenses will at some point need to improve significantly. So here comes another problem. People who have a great interest in photography many times seek a camera with great zoom capabilities. Well, the thing about zoom is that it usually results in reduced image quality, because the optics don't perform as well at a given zoom setting. So, in order to produce optimal lenses for cameras that pack many more pixels, manufacturers will need to narrow cameras' zoom ranges. I've found that cameras these day are, however, generally sharp at all zoom settings, even when viewed at 100% (dot by dot)

Videography
I think modern technology is making great strides in videography. I think it's crucial that we try to create camcorders with ever higher resolution. The reason I have for this is that when we save recorded videos, they will meet our resolution standards for many years to come. Since camcorders record at several times less resolution than professional photo cameras, there's a whole lot of room there for them to record video quite well in low light situations. And of course, it also allows for way more DR. In fact, fairly recently, Canon has come out with a camera that can record movies using just ambient light from the moon. The light sensitivity of this camera is many, many times that of even the most expensive professional cameras. Generally, cameras for photography have sensitivities ranging anywhere from 100 to at least 128,000 ISO when it comes to the most expensive ones. Can you guess what the ISO on the Canon camcorder is? You're more likely to get it wrong than right. It's four million! Using such a setting, one could successfully record using merely just a few candles to light the way. more info. I have never been able to record something using mere moonlight (lol). However, I do have a pretty good feel for how much light sensitivity it'd take to be able to see well using just the moon. So much, in fact, that to just take a picture using an ISO setting of 100, it takes at least 5 minutes of exposure time to make an image look as bright as it otherwise would in daylight. This gives us a sense of how powerful camcorders can be in their low light abilities. Let me tell you, once I got the right image under the moonlight, the resulting image was nothing short of breathtaking, at least in my opinion. A moonlit landscape can differ from sunlit landscapes in several ways. Take stars for example. Getting an image of stars in sunlight is literally unattainable. Yet under a moonlit photo, it's quite possible to notice hundreds and hundreds of stars, even if you have the camera pointed so it aims right beside the moon. Also, the same story holds true for artificial lighting. When are you ever going to be able to see lights during daytime? So, would such a scene be possible to capture using video? Probably not. In order for this to possible, one would probably need a long exposure, such as eight seconds or longer. With a much shorter exposure, such as 1/30 of a second, the light from the moon would be practically shining exactly the same way over each of the frames. In a long exposure photo,the reason the stars can be seen is that the exposure is long enough that, during this time, the moon can move a good part across the sky. This means the light has changed a lot, as compared to what we may see during the daytime. Back to the Canon camera. From what I've read, many people hope that the camera can be used for scientific applications. That sounds truly exciting, to be honest. Will this lead to any new scientific discoveries? You know, one of the things I'd be really interested in if I could own such a camera is to be able to achieve high speed video in lowlight. In fact, such a camera might even be able to create excellent photos. You could record a static scene in low light, then combine the frames in PS, for example to create a noise-free image. The applications for astronomy would most certainly be staggering. You could also combine frames in order to create a much brighter image by combining added light from each frame. You could undoubtedly have lots of fun with such technology. So, what video technology is coming up next? We've already had 4k recording in many devices for quite some time, including Samsung phones. As video quality improves, so can high speed video making. The higher the resolution a video camera is made with, the more power it has to be able to achieve slow motion, lower resolution video clips. In the modern world, some camcorders have the remarkable ability to record using lossless compression. And yes, this means the kind of lossless compression one may find in photography. Combine this with 4k and you get video quality at such a level that it rivals regular photos! SLRs can be great at making movies. However, there are a few big problems with this idea. For more on these problems, here's some more info. Long story short about SLR video, is that you're probably much better off just getting a camcorder.Time lapse video have almost always captivated me. I mean, you get to see the world from a whole new perspective in time. It has a lot of things in common with long exposure photography. I guess not many people think about it. However, time lapse and long exposure photography is essentially the exact opposite of high speed photography. I have always wondered how fast of a shutter speed it's even possible to attain. On that note, what's the longest exposure we can possibly attain? I guess for that answer, since we are continuously learning more and more each day, only time will tell. Time will almost certainly help us understand more, and help us to answer our most intriguing questions. Whether I'm able to retrieve PS back or not, I'll give you my Flickr page in case you'd like to see my work. https://www.flickr.com/photos/31391486@N04/