photo sharing: HDR

[Groucho]

Halo3 uses an actual HDR based engine, with a floating point exposure range. The screen is limited to a finite range, and the game automatically adjusts overall exposure as the dynamic range of all the combined content on screen changes. There's a slight lag to it, so you can get 'flare outs', but then the exposure will adjust to compensate, much like the iris of a human eye dilating or contracting to control light to the retina.

That still doesn't sound like HDR - that sounds like low dynamic range but with a dynamically changing iris (or aperture if you want to stick with the photo analogy. )

 

[Gdad]

Takin a few work pictures the other day and I decided to experiment a bit. The camera was tripod mounted and bracketed with 5 shots at 2/3 stop. I opened four of the five in Capture NX- corrected the fisheye distortion- converted each to a Tiff file- and opened in CS3. There I merged them together into an HDR image.

Here are the results.

Here is the most and least exposed images from the batch for reference.

I thought it was kind of interesting- anyone else ever play around with this?

 

[bostran1]

I have done a bunch of HDRs. But I like Photomatix much better than CS3 for them. The results are much better with Photomatix's tone mapping tool. But this is definitely a good start. You picked a good shot with a high dynamic range. Keep up the good work, tripods are important. Even the slightest move can ruin the shot.

Here are a few of mine:









There are also some Disney one's here.

 

[Groucho]

I think Photomatix produces different HDR shots than CS3, not necessarily better. Most Photomatix-created tone-mapped HDR shots look distinctly unnatural, which not everyone finds pleasing. (I was intrigued at first and am now squarely in the "don't like it" camp.)

Gdad's CS3-created shot looks a bit more natural, still a little bit "off" from what someone actually standing there would see, but it doesn't draw so much attention to the fact that it's HDR. One problem (and this is probably due to CS3's algorithms) is that there are "halos" around the trees that extend above the building into the sky - presumably CS3 was trying to create a smooth transition from the brighter sky to the darker trees, but it's actually making adjustments that it shouldn't.

IMHO, the best HDR shot is the one that you don't know is an HDR shot. Otherwise are perfectly welcome to disagree.

 

[MICKEY88]

I think Photomatix produces different HDR shots than CS3, not necessarily better. Most Photomatix-created tone-mapped HDR shots look distinctly unnatural, which not everyone finds pleasing. (I was intrigued at first and am now squarely in the "don't like it" camp.)

Gdad's CS3-created shot looks a bit more natural, still a little bit "off" from what someone actually standing there would see, but it doesn't draw so much attention to the fact that it's HDR. One problem (and this is probably due to CS3's algorithms) is that there are "halos" around the trees that extend above the building into the sky - presumably CS3 was trying to create a smooth transition from the brighter sky to the darker trees, but it's actually making adjustments that it shouldn't.

IMHO, the best HDR shot is the one that you don't know is an HDR shot. Otherwise are perfectly welcome to disagree.

one of the members on photocamel did a how to on hdrs and he specifically adressed the issue of avoiding halos..

 

[bostran1]

I think Photomatix produces different HDR shots than CS3, not necessarily better. Most Photomatix-created tone-mapped HDR shots look distinctly unnatural, which not everyone finds pleasing. (I was intrigued at first and am now squarely in the "don't like it" camp.)

I agree in regards to the fake looking HDRs but I disagree that Photomatix makes less realistic HDR shots than CS3. Photomatix's tone mapping allows the user to experiment and get many results, from fake to real. My only complaint about about both programs is that especially on the real-looking HDRs a lot of sharpness seems to get lost and the results end being that the shot looks soft on the edges (but so halo-y) like you suggested.

 

[We-Luv-Disney]

Good start Gdad. Ive never tried CS3 for HDR processing.

 

[alan]

I love Gdad's shot because you really feel that the sun is strong. But yes, on second looks, I tihnk the halo effect would anny ome.

I always find that Photomatix seems to make the red channel way too strong

regards,
/alan

 

[DVC Jen]

I love it! But I am also a huge fan of HDR photos.

Kinda funny that I saw this thread today - I was just listening to a short talk about it on the cd I am listening to with my current NYIP lesson. They weren't fans of them either.

Oh well - I think they are cool. We can't all like the same things right?

 

[MICKEY88]

check out www.photocamel.com there is a really good video tutorial..

 

[EasyGoing*]

I found this site to be very helpful . Iam a big fan of HDR.
http://stuckincustoms.com/2006/06/06/548/
I think this guy has a real talent for HDR.

 

[boBQuincy]

 

[orchjoe]

Cool

 

[WVDisGeek]

Does anyone here have any HDR photos of the World?

Just playing around with this form of photography and found some really interesting pics online, but very little of the World.

Wanted to see if any of our resident shutterbugs had any to share.

 

[thomas998]

Okay...

Here's a subtle and not so subtle attempt at it...

 

[Code]

Here are 2 on my HDRs from the World. I greatly dislike the uber-fake looking treatments that have become the hallmark of most HDR shots, I went for as realistic looking as possible.

 

[WVDisGeek]

Thanks for the shots! Gives me somethign to look forward to playing with in December.

Which program do you use? I am trying Photomatix and it seems pretty easy to use. Any other suggestions?

 

[boBQuincy]

I am not a fan of the fake looking images either, to me HDR is best used to extend the range of the sensor. Here are a couple from AKL:

These were done in Photoshop CS3

 

[jfulcer]

Okay, okay. Just one uber-fake picture. I still like it:

Stop it! Just one more uber:

Just one more. Promise. Seen this normal photo hundreds of times.

 

[jfulcer]

I couldn't help myself. I don't think this one is too fake, is it?

Where is it from?