Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 17 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Do you hate HDR too?  (Read 261002 times)
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9094



WWW
« Reply #240 on: September 12, 2011, 08:06:36 PM »
ReplyReply

In the end, Andrew it's unlikely we'll ever get that level of agreement.

Agreed. If that were even close to possible, we’d also have Canon and Nikon saving DNG, we’d have a true raw histogram on the camera, people would never mix up DPI and PPI, and never confuse dynamic range an bit depth. But some can hope for such clarity some day <g>.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9094



WWW
« Reply #241 on: September 12, 2011, 08:36:58 PM »
ReplyReply

I’d have to ask the following:

If you shoot an image with a 5DMII, one capture, is it HDR?
If you shoot an image with the K5, one capture, is it HDR?
If one is, and one isn’t, what makes them different? For that matter, enter any camera model and again, is a single capture HDR and if so (or if not) why?

If you take one capture on any camera system and bring it into what is called HDR software, is this resulting image HDR? If so why, if not why? Or is it just tone mapping?

If you take one raw image and render it two ways in your raw converter, but blend the two in Photoshop, is this HDR? I seem to hear many say its not (its Tone mapping. I agree).
If you take one TIFF image and render it two ways in Photoshop and blend the two, is this HDR? Or is it just tone mapping (I’d say it is).
If you take one image, TIFF or raw, render it two ways and bring it into what is called HDR software, is this resulting image HDR?

If you take multiple images that are bracketed and bring them into what is called HDR software, is this resulting image HDR? Based on the type of capture device, it always is, it sometimes is, it never is? For that matter, if you just took pieces of each and manually assembled them in Photoshop (NOT Merge to HDR), is this HDR?

Messy isn’t it?
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
joofa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 488



« Reply #242 on: September 12, 2011, 09:41:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Like I said, X stops of range is HDR but Y isn’t? By using HDR as a term that defines a process, we are not stuck with fixed values as the technology improves.

I think you put it quite well.

Logged

Joofa
http://www.djjoofa.com
Download Photoshop and After Effects plugins
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #243 on: September 13, 2011, 06:43:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I’d have to ask the following:

If you shoot an image with a 5DMII, one capture, is it HDR?

In my opinion, no.
Quote
If you shoot an image with the K5, one capture, is it HDR?

In my opinion, no.
Quote
If one is, and one isn’t, what makes them different? For that matter, enter any camera model and again, is a single capture HDR and if so (or if not) why?
In my opinion no because I consider HDR to be capturing something beyond what the sensor can capture in a single shot.

Quote
If you take one capture on any camera system and bring it into what is called HDR software, is this resulting image HDR? If so why, if not why? Or is it just tone mapping?
It's just tonemapping.

Quote
If you take one raw image and render it two ways in your raw converter, but blend the two in Photoshop, is this HDR? I seem to hear many say its not (its Tone mapping. I agree).
It's just tonemapping.  The reason, by the definition I use, is that you're not gaining any additional dynamic range by the multiple processing.  All that's being done is pushing around the range of brightness that was captured.
Quote

If you take one TIFF image and render it two ways in Photoshop and blend the two, is this HDR? Or is it just tone mapping (I’d say it is).
Again, just tonemapping for the same reason as above.
Quote
If you take one image, TIFF or raw, render it two ways and bring it into what is called HDR software, is this resulting image HDR?
Again, just tonemapping for the same reason as above.

Quote
If you take multiple images that are bracketed and bring them into what is called HDR software, is this resulting image HDR?
Yes.  The resulting 32 bit image is an HDR image.  After tonemapping and dropping the bit depth it's once again an LDR image.

Quote
Based on the type of capture device, it always is, it sometimes is, it never is?
Capture device doesn't matter.  If you're capturing more drange in the bracket than can be captured in a single shot, blending those images in HDR software it's HDR.

Quote
For that matter, if you just took pieces of each and manually assembled them in Photoshop (NOT Merge to HDR), is this HDR?
No.  This is XDR (see, I do like that term)  Smiley

Quote
Messy isn’t it?
Not so much.  Grin
Logged
Peter_DL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 421


« Reply #244 on: September 13, 2011, 11:00:58 AM »
ReplyReply

It absolutely depends on the camera being used...
HDR/XDR are about capture ...

Basically what you are saying here is that you are defining HDR as a process where bracketing is needed, just because you cannot find a better definition for it.

Yes, and every day we see the sun walking across the sky, and it is therefore rotating around the earth.
Logical. That’s probably how popular definitions are made.
OK, Bob, fine.

Peter

--
http://paulcarlisle.net/old/earthviewer.html
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #245 on: September 13, 2011, 11:11:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, Peter.  I'm not following what you're saying.  I have a feeling I just got lumped in with the 'earth is flat' crowd but I'm not entirely sure how or why.
Logged
Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1290



WWW
« Reply #246 on: September 13, 2011, 11:18:48 AM »
ReplyReply

By using HDR as a term that defines a process, we are not stuck with fixed values as the technology improves.

Fine, but if that 'process' is bracketing, HDR is destinated to a certain death as the technology improves. The better sensors are, HDR will not exist anymore. Too bad!  Grin
Logged

Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1290



WWW
« Reply #247 on: September 13, 2011, 11:23:48 AM »
ReplyReply

If you shoot an image with a 5DMII, one capture, is it HDR?
If you shoot an image with the K5, one capture, is it HDR?
If one is, and one isn’t, what makes them different? For that matter, enter any camera model and again, is a single capture HDR and if so (or if not) why?

If you take one capture on any camera system and bring it into what is called HDR software, is this resulting image HDR? If so why, if not why? Or is it just tone mapping?

If you take one raw image and render it two ways in your raw converter, but blend the two in Photoshop, is this HDR? I seem to hear many say its not (its Tone mapping. I agree).
If you take one TIFF image and render it two ways in Photoshop and blend the two, is this HDR? Or is it just tone mapping (I’d say it is).
If you take one image, TIFF or raw, render it two ways and bring it into what is called HDR software, is this resulting image HDR?

If you take multiple images that are bracketed and bring them into what is called HDR software, is this resulting image HDR? Based on the type of capture device, it always is, it sometimes is, it never is? For that matter, if you just took pieces of each and manually assembled them in Photoshop (NOT Merge to HDR), is this HDR?

Messy isn’t it?

None of these questions refer to the dynamic range of the scene, which is the DR that has to be measured, captured and tone mapped to adapt it to the output device. So none of these questions is actually about HDR (remember, High Dynamic Range), just about camera shooting and image processing.

If there is not a high dynamic range scene, it doesn't make sense to talk about HDR (no matter if you make a 1 million bracketing, and use 64-bit floating point tone terrifying algorithms).

Regards
« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 11:28:23 AM by Guillermo Luijk » Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9094



WWW
« Reply #248 on: September 13, 2011, 11:28:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Fine, but if that 'process' is bracketing, HDR is destinated to a certain death as the technology improves. The better sensors are, HDR will not exist anymore. Too bad!  Grin

I don’t see that as a problem. A loss of a term. What’s the alternative? Someone, some standards body (oh god) has to agree that this or that range is HDR. Not going to happen. Doesn’t need to happen. If we end up with a 20 stop single capture, great.

If some standards body today decided to meet and come up with a term that X number of stops is HDR, by the time they agree and post the findings, we’ll probably have that 20 stop range camera or whatever they agree upon will be outdated and obsolete. Using the process to describe HDR has no such limitations.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9094



WWW
« Reply #249 on: September 13, 2011, 11:29:57 AM »
ReplyReply

None of these questions refer to the dynamic range of the scene, which is the DR that has to be measured, captured and tone mapped to adapt it to the output device.

Actually the questions assume (my fault) that the scene exceeds the range of each capture device. Otherwise, there is no need to bracket or call (question) whether this is HDR or not.
The assumption is the photographers has a clue about the scene gamut and the range of his capture device and then acts accordingly.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1290



WWW
« Reply #250 on: September 13, 2011, 11:32:03 AM »
ReplyReply

I don’t see that as a problem.

Don't you find strange that HDR disappears for digital photography, but remains for other disciplines (computer graphics, painting, the concept itself)? don't you think that is a clear evidence that a definition based on the way you captured DR one day is futile? (it's the first time I use this word in English, hope to be doing it right  Grin).
Logged

Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1290



WWW
« Reply #251 on: September 13, 2011, 11:33:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Actually the questions assume (my fault) that the scene exceeds the range of each capture device. Otherwise, there is no need to bracket or call (question) whether this is HDR or not.
The assumption is the photographers has a clue about the scene gamut and the range of his capture device and then acts accordingly.

According to that, if you shoot a scene with 6 stops of DR using an old compact camera that has only 4 stops of dynamic range, you are doing HDR. If 6 stops of DR is 'high', the DR a Pentax K5 can capture would be astronomical!
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9094



WWW
« Reply #252 on: September 13, 2011, 11:34:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Don't you find strange that HDR disappears for digital photography, but remains for other disciplines (computer graphics, painting, the concept itself)? don't you think that is a clear evidence that a definition based on the way you captured DR one day is futile? (it's the first time I use this word in English, hope to be doing it right  Grin).

Its an interesting point. But again, what are the alternatives? What do the other disciplines use to define HDR from what isn’t HDR?
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9094



WWW
« Reply #253 on: September 13, 2011, 11:37:05 AM »
ReplyReply

According to that, if you shoot a scene with 6 stops of DR using an old compact camera that has only 4 stops of dynamic range, you are doing HDR. So 6 stops of DR is 'high'.

Yup, for that user, camera system, scene.

Who’s to say what is and isn’t high other than the person with their equipment, scene, processing options?

What makes a capture high resolution? What was considered high in 1994 and 2004 versus today is significant. What makes something wide gamut (today or 10 years ago)? At one point in time, Adobe RGB was a wide gamut space because there were basically no output devices who’s gamut exceeded it. Today, thanks to newer colorants, that’s not true. Stuff changes.

Again, if you or anyone else has a better alternative, I’m all ears.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1290



WWW
« Reply #254 on: September 13, 2011, 11:39:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Its an interesting point. But again, what are the alternatives? What do the other disciplines use to define HDR from what isn’t HDR?

The lack of alternatives doesn't support a bad definition.
The other disciplines assume HDR is about compressing an input DR onto an output device wich much less DR capabilities. E.g. a 32-bit syntehical image over a LDR monitor, or a HDR sunset over an oil canvas.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9094



WWW
« Reply #255 on: September 13, 2011, 11:41:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Tha lack of alternatives doesn't support a bad definition.

As yet, I’m not convinced its a bad definition. Its the best I’ve found thus far...

Quote
The other disciplines assume HDR is about compressing an input DR onto an output device wich much less DR capabilities. E.g. a 32-bit syntehical image over a LDR monitor, or a HDR sunset over an oil canvas.

Well then everything is HDR if you consider we need to compress our images to fit a print (and differently to a display). Another key word here is assume.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Peter_DL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 421


« Reply #256 on: September 13, 2011, 11:52:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, Peter.  I'm not following what you're saying...

Maybe, Bob, the question is indeed about the attributes of a good definition.
(Scientifically) intuitively, I’m rejection your definition. It seems to me dependent on your individual experience and in particular dependent on the very current state of camera technology. Some lines above I had tried to contribute a more general definition, by describing a HDR-discriminator in post-processing, independent from how the data were collected. In your terminology, you would see it (all) as tone-mapping. But I would not exclude completely that it is just based on my experience…

I’m wondering, if there is any "definition theory"
to tackle the KPIs (key performance indicators) for the quality of a Definition.
Never came across this question.

Peter

--
« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 11:55:36 AM by Peter_DL » Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #257 on: September 13, 2011, 12:09:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Maybe, Bob, the question is indeed about the attributes of a good definition.
(Scientifically) intuitively, I’m rejection your definition. It seems to me dependent on your individual experience and in particular dependent on the very current state of camera technology. Some lines above I had tried to contribute a more general definition, by describing a HDR-discriminator in post-processing, independent from how the data were collected. In your terminology, you would see it (all) as tone-mapping. But I would not exclude completely that it is just based on my experience…

I’m wondering, if there is any "definition theory"
to tackle the KPIs (key performance indicators) for the quality of a Definition.
Never came across this question.

Peter

--


I don't think the definition I'm using is dependent on my personal preference.  My definition is based in fact and in reality.  It doesn't involve some arbitrary cut-off point that no one will likely agree on.  It separates 32 bit HDR from other low bit depth methods of extending dynamic range - and at its origins HDR is a 32 bit format.  It recognises the fact that different cameras with different sensor sensitivities will capture different ranges of brightness and accommodates that fact into the definition.  It recognises the fact that tonemapping isn't an HDR-only term. 

As both Andrew and I have pointed out, and no one has yet been able to refute, if the definition is based on output alone, then every DSLR produced in the last 7 years or so is an HDR camera and every image shot on colour neg or black and white film was an HDR image (I don't include color positive film because it's narrower brightness range is reasonably close to what output media can render).  Yet those claiming it's based on output alone aren't accepting that anything less than a K5 or D7000 produces single-shot HDR images.  I reject that arbitrariness.  That is the essence of a bad definition.
Logged
Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1290



WWW
« Reply #258 on: September 13, 2011, 12:41:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Well then everything is HDR if you consider we need to compress our images to fit a print (and differently to a display). Another key word here is assume.

Correct, that is why I tried somewhere to give a more general definition of HDR based on this DR compression. HDR happens when the required DR compression is so high (there is such a DR gap between the input and the output) that we cannot achieve it by conventional means, but need special techniques/effort. Camera bracketing could be considered one of these non-conventional means, but it will quickly go off as cameras get better in DR.

So the real challenge of HDR is the DR compression, and we could consider HDR as any situation where someone has to fit a 'high' input dynamic range scene into a 'low' output dynamic range device. Let it be a photograper, a painter or a 3D render specialist representing a scene of a room with a window wide open to the sunlight.


Regards
« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 12:47:14 PM by Guillermo Luijk » Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7964



WWW
« Reply #259 on: September 13, 2011, 01:56:14 PM »
ReplyReply

The one thing that is clear to me at this point is that several different definitions are needed to keep everybody happy (I admit I feel most comfortable with Andrew's definition, which seems eminently practical).

So I suggest consulting with the experts at Epson's Paper-Naming division to come up with appropriate names for the different varieties of "HDR." We might then have "Archival DR" (or "ADR"), "Enhanced DR (EDR)", "Super Premium DR (SPDR)", etc.

Then we can argue about which name best fits each person's personal vision of "HDR."  

 Huh
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Pages: « 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 17 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad