What does 16 stop dynamic range ACTUALLY look like on a mirrorless camera RAW file or LOG?

[Andrew - EOSHD]

I want to see it.

Real world subjects only (like landscape scenes, people, and so on).

[feanorfinwe]

 

 

[Ilkka Nissila]

The high dynamic range (using DGO technology) in the Sony A7 V is for low to middle ISO stills when using the mechanical shutter; DGO is not used for video, and certainly there won't be any 16-stop dynamic range at ISO 3200 or 8000. The claimed 16 stops is likely achieved on a signficantly downsampled ISO 100 still image and criteria based on engineering dynamic range  (SNR = 1).

 

Do the EOSHD website and browsers used by visitors support high dynamic range photos on Super Retina XDR and other HDR screens? Otherwise, I'm not sure what the OP is looking to see. Having lower noise can't harm the image and it's up to the user to make use of the higher fidelity, or not make use of it.

[eatstoomuchjam]

On 12/14/2025 at 5:07 AM, Andrew Reid said:

I want to see it.

Real world subjects only (like landscape scenes, people, and so on).

For a still image?  Photons to photos has never measured one - their highest measured DR is between 13 and 14 stops on some Phase One.  They have the A7V and the GFX 100 II about equal at ISO 80/100.  If you want some landscape photos from my GFX 100 II, I can certainly share a few.

For video, it's not exactly a mirrorless (but same sensor as in the mirrorless S1R II), but supposedly the Ronin 4D 8K in DR expansion mode has 16.3 total stops on the cined chart, but like most cameras, a lot less than that at a usable SNR.

[Andrew - EOSHD]

5 hours ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

I'm not sure what the OP is looking to see.

I want to see one of those 13 or 15 stop dynamic range RAW files everyone is raving about

[Andrew - EOSHD]

8 hours ago, feanorfinwe said:

 

 

 

 

None of those images show the full dynamic range.

It's a low light test more than dynamic range.

[feanorfinwe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXt3V6OAEpo

 

[Emanuel]

Yes, Andrew’s spot-on, and he’s still at it.

[Andrew - EOSHD]

4 hours ago, feanorfinwe said:

Wow. Yes.

That's a perfect example of when you get your exposure wrong by 5 stops.

4 hours ago, feanorfinwe said:

The dynamic range in this shot is about 3.5 stops!

[kye]

I shoot in uncontrolled conditions, using only available light, and shoot what is happening with no directing and no do-overs.  This means I'm frequently pointing the camera in the wrong direction, shooting people backlit against the sunset, or shooting urban stuff in midday-sun with deep shadows in the shade in the same frame as direct sun hitting pure-white objects.

This was a regular headache on the GH5 with its 9.7/10.8 stops.  The OG BMPCC with 11.2/12.5 stops was MUCH better but still not perfect, and while I haven't used my GH7 in every possible scenario, so far its 11.9/13.2 stops are more than enough.

The only reason you need DR is if you want to heavily manipulate the shot in post by pulling the highlights down for some reason, or lifting the shadows up for some reason.

Beyond the DR of the GH7 I can't think of many uses other than bragging rights.  When the Alexa 35 came out and DPs were talking about its extended DR, it was only in very specific situations that it really mattered.  

Rec709 only has about 6 stops of DR, so unless you're mastering for HDR (and if you are, umm - why?) so adding more DR into the scene only gives you more headaches in post when you have to compress and throw away the majority of the DR in the image.

[Jahleh]

15 hours ago, kye said:

Rec709 only has about 6 stops of DR, so unless you're mastering for HDR (and if you are, umm - why?) so adding more DR into the scene only gives you more headaches in post when you have to compress and throw away the majority of the DR in the image.

I shoot also mostly with available light, and when the sun has set in the light of dim headlamps. So being able to push and pull shadows and highlights is extremely important. In that regard GH7 is no slouch, but it is not quite the same than Z6iii, ZR nor even S5ii was either.

If you have a good HDR capable display (and I don’t mean your tiny phones, laptop or medium sized  displays, but a 65” or bigger OLED with infinite contrast, or a JVC projector with good contrast and inky blacks) one must be a wooden eye to not notice the difference between SDR and HDR masters. 
At least with my grading skills the 6 stops of DR in SDR look always worse than what I can get from HDR.

[kye]

11 hours ago, Jahleh said:

I shoot also mostly with available light, and when the sun has set in the light of dim headlamps. So being able to push and pull shadows and highlights is extremely important. In that regard GH7 is no slouch, but it is not quite the same than Z6iii, ZR nor even S5ii was either.

If you have a good HDR capable display (and I don’t mean your tiny phones, laptop or medium sized  displays, but a 65” or bigger OLED with infinite contrast, or a JVC projector with good contrast and inky blacks) one must be a wooden eye to not notice the difference between SDR and HDR masters. 
At least with my grading skills the 6 stops of DR in SDR look always worse than what I can get from HDR.

I'm seeing a lot of connected things here.

To put it bluntly, if your HDR grades are better than your SDR grades, that's just a limitation in your skill level of grading.  I say this as someone who took an embarrassing amount of time to learn to colour grade myself, and even now I still feel like I'm not getting the results I'd like.
But this just goes to reinforce my original point - that one of the hardest challenges of colour grading is squeezing the cameras DR into the display space DR.  The less squeezing required the less flexibility you have in grading but the easier it is to get something that looks good.  The average quality of colour grading dropped significantly when people went from shooting 709 and publishing 709 to shooting LOG and publishing 709.

Shooting with headlamps in situations where there is essentially no ambient light is definitely tough though, and you're definitely pushing the limits of what the current cameras can do, and it's definitely more than they were designed for!

Perhaps a practical step might be to mount a small light to the hot-shoe of the camera, just to fill-in the shadows a bit.  Obviously it wouldn't be perfect, and would have the same proximity issues where things that are too close to the light are too bright and things too far away are too dark, but as the light is aligned with the direction the camera is pointing it will probably be a net benefit (and also not disturb whatever you're doing too much).

In terms of noticing the difference between SDR and HDR, sure, it'll definitely be noticeable, I'd just question if it's desirable.  I've heard a number of professionals speak about it and it's a surprisingly complicated topic.  Like a lot of things, the depth of knowledge and discussion online is embarrassingly shallow, and more reminiscent of toddlers eating crayons than educated people discussing the pros and cons of the subject.  

If you're curious, the best free resource I'd recommend is "The Colour Book" from FilmLight.  It's a free PDF download (no registration required) from here: https://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/support/documents/colourbook/colourbook.php

In case you're unaware, FilmLight are the makers of BaseLight, which is the alternative to Resolve except it costs as much as a house.  

The problem with the book is that when you download it, the first thing you'll notice is that it's 12 chapters and 300 pages.  Here's the uncomfortable truth though, to actually understand what is going on you need to have a solid understanding of the human visual system (or eyes, our brains, what we can see, what we can't see, how our vision system responds to various situations we encounter, etc).  This explanation legitimately requires hundreds of pages because it's an enormously complex system, much more than any reasonable person would ever guess.
This is the reason that most discussions of HDR vs SDR are so comically rudimentary in comparison.  If camera forums had the same level of knowledge about cameras that they do about the human visual system, half the forum would be discussing how to navigate a menu, and the most fervent arguments would be about topics like if cameras need lenses or not, etc.