Obviously folks are using different techniques and there are at least three programs of which I'm aware.
Photoshop, Photomatix, and HDRShop, developed by a SIGGRAPH guru.
The big thing to remember is that with these programs we are using are creating 32-bit images and this simply means there's far more precision in the stored colors.
Jump in and get your feet wet. It's does take patience and practice and a love of graphics. Your first efforts may end up on the cutting room floor. So what
There's also a program called FDRTools. The basic version, for either Mac or Windows, is free. The advanced version can be run as a 30-day trial.
Posted by David Bostedo on April 30, 2008 at 8:12 AM
To add to the list of programs, Enblend is a fully automated command line blending program with some limited options, but can give pretty nice results. I haven't tried it too much, but once you get it set it can be pretty easy to use. Information can be found on the PanoTools wiki for Enfuse.
Not only do you end up with a 32-bit file, but the image information is in floating-point format - not integer form. That effectively means that there's nearly an infinite range of intensity information for each pixel. That's a huge improvement from the 10, 12, or 14-bit representation from the image sensor in the camera.
-Arlen
Posted by David Bostedo on April 30, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Arlen - that's true, but since those floating point ranges must get quantized to be converted to integer display pixels, and your eyes aren't really that sensitive, it is a bit of overkill.
In other words, you're using finer gradation within the range the monitor/colorspace/output device can use; But you aren't expanding the overall range, and your getting clipped results when you display them. I'm not sure at what level of bit depth you've maxed out what the human eye can percieve, but I don't think it's too far past 14-bits.
I guess mathematically, you may be expanding the range, but practically, you're not. Unless some of the HDR monitors really take off and become available (check this one out). Of course, then you won't be able to print what's on your screen.
Interesting link, David. I get the feeling that one would need protective eyewear when viewing extremely bright objects on such a display.
Posted by David Bostedo on April 30, 2008 at 10:58 PM
Yeah Anil - that's the idea...you could really show a sunrise or sunset. The one in my link is for sale on a special order basis, but I think it's about $40,000 now, and I don't know if the bugs are all worked out.
I suppose the problem is that the huge dynamic range in real life is compensated for by your eye because it's spread over your whole field of view (you can't look in every direction at once). On a monitor like that, what would normally cover, say, 90 degrees in your field of view in real life, could cover only a few degrees of your view when looking at the monitor. So really bright objects in the image may be too dominant. Unless you get up close, or maybe get a 100" display or something. Anyway, the future looks fun!
"The big thing to remember is that with these programs we are using are creating 32-bit images and this simply means there's far more precision in the stored colors."
I am not a big fan of HDR in the first place, most look fake, or over done
Well in the end, you are not printing in 32bit, so to me seems like a waste of time. No print company will print or have the capablities to print in 32bit. Check them out WCI, Calypso. You wont get a 32bit print. So, working in 32bit on your screen, is not gonna help in your print process. Your lightjet prints are in 8bit, and epson in 16bit. So in the end, are you just doing this for yourself?
1) You probably don't like HDR, because it tends to be greatly abused and have a certain look to it. The trend now seems to be toward HDR shots that are very realistic looking, and closer to what your eye is capable of. Take a look at some of the shots around the web, and you can find terrific, not fake, no overdone HDR.
2) The 32 bit thing is just a by product of some of the particular software used for HDR. As I said above, and you point out, this gets converted either on screen or on paper. The 32-bits is so that you can get the 8 or 16 bit results that you do by using an HDR flow. So no, it's not just for yourself - you can still get HDR prints that match your screen.
Discussion
9 repliesSee:
Pop Photo
Adobe Photoshop
Resources~Tutorials
Also check out Weekly challenge. Lots of folks have included the background images they used to create their HDR images.
Check out:
Terri Sampson
Zack Schnepf
Gary Minish
Todd Caudle
Danny Young
Carol Hyman
Obviously folks are using different techniques and there are at least three programs of which I'm aware.
Photoshop, Photomatix, and HDRShop, developed by a SIGGRAPH guru.
The big thing to remember is that with these programs we are using are creating 32-bit images and this simply means there's far more precision in the stored colors.
Jump in and get your feet wet. It's does take patience and practice and a love of graphics. Your first efforts may end up on the cutting room floor. So what
Carol
Not only do you end up with a 32-bit file, but the image information is in floating-point format - not integer form. That effectively means that there's nearly an infinite range of intensity information for each pixel. That's a huge improvement from the 10, 12, or 14-bit representation from the image sensor in the camera.
-Arlen
In other words, you're using finer gradation within the range the monitor/colorspace/output device can use; But you aren't expanding the overall range, and your getting clipped results when you display them. I'm not sure at what level of bit depth you've maxed out what the human eye can percieve, but I don't think it's too far past 14-bits.
I guess mathematically, you may be expanding the range, but practically, you're not. Unless some of the HDR monitors really take off and become available (check this one out). Of course, then you won't be able to print what's on your screen.
I suppose the problem is that the huge dynamic range in real life is compensated for by your eye because it's spread over your whole field of view (you can't look in every direction at once). On a monitor like that, what would normally cover, say, 90 degrees in your field of view in real life, could cover only a few degrees of your view when looking at the monitor. So really bright objects in the image may be too dominant. Unless you get up close, or maybe get a 100" display or something. Anyway, the future looks fun!
I am not a big fan of HDR in the first place, most look fake, or over done
Well in the end, you are not printing in 32bit, so to me seems like a waste of time. No print company will print or have the capablities to print in 32bit. Check them out WCI, Calypso. You wont get a 32bit print. So, working in 32bit on your screen, is not gonna help in your print process. Your lightjet prints are in 8bit, and epson in 16bit. So in the end, are you just doing this for yourself?
1) You probably don't like HDR, because it tends to be greatly abused and have a certain look to it. The trend now seems to be toward HDR shots that are very realistic looking, and closer to what your eye is capable of. Take a look at some of the shots around the web, and you can find terrific, not fake, no overdone HDR.
2) The 32 bit thing is just a by product of some of the particular software used for HDR. As I said above, and you point out, this gets converted either on screen or on paper. The 32-bits is so that you can get the 8 or 16 bit results that you do by using an HDR flow. So no, it's not just for yourself - you can still get HDR prints that match your screen.