![]() |
|
Post some shot you made ! ! ! |
GullRaDriel
Member #3,861
September 2003
![]() |
Just for the record and to second Miran's speech, the original size of the panoramic I have posted is 6631x1222, and I have just made a new one that is even bigger. Anyway, Kir, your HDR attempts are beautifull ! Not too much HDR'ed, without fuzzy, nice ! "Code is like shit - it only smells if it is not yours" |
Johan Halmén
Member #1,550
September 2001
|
Still don't get the HDR concept. My monitor can show #000000 and #ffffff and everything inbetween. Well, probably not everything, but a lot, anyway. Thinking of the night picture, where dark goes #000000 and light goes #ffffff. If human eye can see more details in the dark, is it so that human eye can see more bits, like 36 bit. Where the camera registers only #000000, human eye would see everything between #000 000 000 and #008 008 008. Or does the human eye kind of adjust curves, where everything between say #000000 and #010101 extends to a range between #000000 and #040404, while same happens in the bright end. While the middle range kind of loses dynamic range, because it is not interesting for the brain. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Years of thorough research have revealed that what people find beautiful about the Mandelbrot set is not the set itself, but all the rest. |
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
![]() |
Johan Halmén said: Thinking of the night picture, where dark goes #000000 and light goes #ffffff. If human eye can see more details in the dark, is it so that human eye can see more bits, like 36 bit. Where the camera registers only #000000, human eye would see everything between #000 000 000 and #008 008 008. Or does the human eye kind of adjust curves, where everything between say #000000 and #010101 extends to a range between #000000 and #040404, while same happens in the bright end. While the middle range kind of loses dynamic range, because it is not interesting for the brain.
The human eye is more sensitive than a 32-bit image + monitor is able to reproduce (easiest test: make a gradient. Zoom in. Are you able to make out separate pixels?). It's also completely incomparable to a computer display, what with the separation of sensory input between rods and cones, amazingly non-linear resolution(s) (e.g. macula vs peripheral retina, rod/cone distribution), rhodopsin build-up/break-down and all. Anyway, the actual advantage of HDR lies in post production... -- |
miran
Member #2,407
June 2002
|
Quote: Still don't get the HDR concept.
Light ranges from no light at all to really a lot of light. So much in fact that if In HDR you take several photos, each exposed for one fraction of the entire light range and then smoothly blend them together. When you take a photo so that the camera will record light in the range 0-20, everything above 20 will be pure white. When you take a photo with settings that will take light in the range 80-100, everything below 80 will be pure black. Take 5 photos to cover the entire range of light, discard sections of pure white and black from each photo and then mix them together and that's it. In the simplest scenario you are taking a photo of a landsape. The hills are relatively dark while the sky is relatively bright. Expose for the hills and the sky will be overexposed (too bright). Expose for the sky and the hills will be almost black. In HDR you take two such photos, one exposed for the dark parts of the scene, the other for the bright parts. Then you take the hills from one photo and the sky from the other and glue them together. -- |
Johan Halmén
Member #1,550
September 2001
|
So if my camera can only sense values from 30 to 50, but the image still show areas of 0 and areas of 100, I probably have pixel values of 0, 5, 10, 15 etc. instead of values of 0, 1, 2, 3 etc. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Years of thorough research have revealed that what people find beautiful about the Mandelbrot set is not the set itself, but all the rest. |
CGamesPlay
Member #2,559
July 2002
![]() |
Kirrs look very good and natural; I can't tell they're HDR at all (which is I think the best way to do it, at least for well-lit shots). -- Ryan Patterson - <http://cgamesplay.com/> |
Kibiz0r
Member #6,203
September 2005
![]() |
I would leave it to artistic interpretation. In some shots, a more realistic processing might look better. But certain atmospheres just demand that you exaggerate the values. {"name":"226973591_dfb80b28c6.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/0\/b\/0b33b4bddf642fe02ba68099cf9f4d62.jpg","w":500,"h":340,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/0\/b\/0b33b4bddf642fe02ba68099cf9f4d62"} --- |
|
|