Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Good ploy to increase sales! lol
I have never really seen that bad of outdoor video being so underexposed or over exposed. I realize Cannon did it for effect. I guess HDR would be good for dummy’s. But I am not sure its any better to do this the to colorize a Black and White Movie?
Jes,
With current video tricks, having 2 copies of alternate qualities, you can create something, abit different.
You can augment them BACK AND FORTH, rather then depending on computers to ADD STUFF, you have a sample of WHAT could be..a RANGE of exposures and granularity.. You can do many things, with samples from a RANGE..
ITS A TRICK. to make something better.
looks like a trick to make everything look fake. Makes it look like CGI
It “looks fake” very much like people prefer 24 fps film to a higher quality 60fps video. Sometimes its more about what you’re used to than the quality of the image.
Maybe they should just try filming that scenery shot on a clear day?
As for the guy… why does he look so bad in the first place? And he looks like a cartoon after HDR processing.
HRD has it uses, but this is not a good example.
HDR has it’s use, but too often gimmicky. If not TOO broad of a range it’s a great tool for those shots you shouldn’t/wouldn’t normally do but had to because of the situation (couldn’t move to new position or adjust lighting). If you end up shooting toward the light source and have deep shadows, you can end up never getting the scene you want. This gives you a chance to get something close to it. Although, yes, the outcome often looks “FAKE” because the range isn’t natural. It’s a COOL effect in that case, neat art, but not practical for photo or video trying to capture the real world.
Looks like of cool and weird at the same time; something like what you would see in a movie, a futuristic noir movie.
Wouldn’t it be better to just use the correct exposure in the first place? I know, I know – not everything in frame is equally well lit. What does that remind me of? Of yeah, real life…
It looks like that at any moment Gordon Freeman is going to come by swinging his crowbar.
Maricopa==close. Fact is the human eyeball was so exquisitely designed than as yet film or photo receptors can’t equal its “dynamic range”==they can better see in bright light or shadows but not both as well as the human eyeball can so in fact the HDR process is an attempt to present what the actual eyeball can see. Or to tweak it artistically for other effects–to saturate the colors more than reality presents.
Whats interesting to me is there is “fake HDR” programs that will take a single photo and play with the raw data to approach the quality of true HDR but its not quite as good as true HDR. I’ve never understood why not. Its just a series of 1’s and 0’s afterall and should be manipulated to that end?
The conditions to get a good natural exposure for a normal picture are more rare than what HDR can provide. Fun in the darkroom/computer room.
The human eye is actually a very simple camera. It’s just a lens with very limited focus and light exposure adjustment.
It’s the visual cortex that does all the magic.
Unlike a still or video camera, which simply collect a “snapshot” on each fram, the image from the eye is being continuously processed by the visual cortex. We “see” everything. The brain processes it and discards an enormous amount so we don’t get overloaded.
HDR is just another trick like 3D. The reason 3D will never look “real” is that it’s limited to simulating the effect on whatever part of the image that the film director decides is important. Everything else in the frame will not look “real”.
http://gizmodo.com/5633122/how-to-shoot-better-iphone-hdr-photos?skyline=true&s=i
I thought the pictures looked amazingly good. If I could take snapshots like that, I would…well, I would take lots of them.
#11 Bobbo –
I use HDR once in a while, but selectively, more as a mask than as the ‘lazy HDR that people tend to use these days.
Suppose you are taking a photo inside a room with a window, and you want to show the tress outside the window (too bright), and the books on a shelf in the corner (too dark).
What you do is you make three exposures, each one correct for the area of interest, all without moving the camera. You then layer the photos, and very carefully make the light and dark areas show through the main photo. You only enhance the ‘incorrect’ areas, working selectively. But that is not the “let’s average everything” method that we understand as HDR these days.
I use ‘auto’ HDR for special assignments, when I want to get a halo and ‘grunge’ look to the photo. Since ‘grunge’ is a current photo fad, it gets used fairly often. But so does ‘auto-tune’ in music… it is what it is.
As far as the eyeball latitude goes, the eyeball has a fairly limited range, but the brain can greatly expand the range by using ‘selective vision’. So if you look into a dark area of a normally illuminated room, the dark area brightens up, but so does the rest of the room, but you do not notice, because the overly bright area is ‘masked’ by your brain. You can not do that with a photo, so the latitude appears to be less. And the eyeball’s range is additionally expanded by shifting to B/W receptors that are more sensitive, basically shifting the eyeball’s ISO once the iris reaches maximum aperture.
Awake==interesting. What is your source for the film speed of the human retina? I don’t know, but it “sounds like” to me you are over applying the camera/film analogy to the human eye? Regarding the total sensory apparatus including the brain, I agree there is a lot of post image processing that is going on.
I’ve dealt mostly in slide shows and 3D imaging with only rare delving into HDR just to see what it was. So there are “averaging” programs now?? I thought layering the images and selecting what you wanted was the only way to go. Technology marches on!
I guess when looking at the darker areas of an image, the iris would open up causing the bright areas to get even lighter? The camera/film analogy does make sense. My initial point still holds: the ISO of the human retina has greater range than most film today and film is still higher than most digital camera’s today. That won’t last for long now.
I love technology. Toys.
Does it work in black & white?
On the remote shot I think they did improve things. It gives you more data to work with when it comes to cleaning up what was a mess.
On the close up of the man. It looked freaky to me.
Unfortunately, I couldn’t get the video to play for more than 10 seconds at a time before it would stop working.