Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

HDR Mode...

Yes and no. While a little local tone mapping is employed by our eyes it's done MUCH better or at least our brain hides it from us really well. When you're looking at a photograph though and everything has a huge glow around it I would say that's less like what my eyes see then a blown out window.

The future isn't so much imo through tone mapping as it is in HDR displays and letting the human eye and brain do what it does best. Of course there will be creative manipulation to ensure people are seeing the right thing nor bothered by the sun but I don't think it's fair to say that the tone mapped images people don't respond positively to are just rejected because they aren't what we're used to seeing.
 
Rick Burnett said:
Which also brings up a point, sometimes you want to get a result that even your eye couldn't perceive. It's not that you want the result to look unnatural, but maybe you are out filming wildlife and the conditions of light are just so harsh that that extra DR gets you more detail in shadows you can bring back together later. No, it wasn't what was really there, but you will artistically wrangle in the range to present something more palatable visually for the audience.

Not everything shot has control of the lighting or the different elements of the scene. It's for these conditions that HDR will really help make usable acquisition more frequent for "found footage" if you will. :)
Click to expand...

Agreed. Also, weird light situations, even if filmed in a "natural way" will look more artificial to us that if we fix them to look like lighting situations that are more familiar to us.
 
Ian Andolina said:
Both the retinal circuitry, the thalamic relay and visual cortex all perform algorithms to map local luminance into local contrast. HDR and tone mapping approximates more closely what the visual system does than not. The blown out highlights and limited dynamic range of photography are much more of an aberration, yet orthodoxy and our Bayesian priors (our visual experience) teaches us that it is more "normal" in photography. Much as the cadence of 24fps gives a "cinematic" sense that 120fps does not.
Click to expand...

haha, goodness.... I like when people use large phrases and then put into parenthesis what it actually means, since they know when writing it, that the end reader doesn't know what it is.
 
Doug Horton said:
haha, goodness.... I like when people use large phrases and then put into parenthesis what it actually means, since they know when writing it, that the end reader doesn't know what it is.
Click to expand...

This is quite certainly an obtuse (slow), mercurial (fickle) diminution (reduction) of one's acute myocardial infarction (heart attack) by means of a rather petulant strain of Orthomyxoviridae (RNA viruses including influenza).


Surprisingly that took me like 10 minutes to write up. Or not surprisingly...
 
Ian Andolina said:
The blown out highlights and limited dynamic range of photography are much more of an aberration, yet orthodoxy and our Bayesian priors (our visual experience) teaches us that it is more "normal" in photography.
Click to expand...
I agree that this is the case - tone mapping might be a more accurate reflection of what we see than normal photography - but I think that the limits of "standard" photography are a large part of the romance of the medium. That photography is inherently quite different to our everyday experience is the source of its magic. For ex: beautiful girl rendered in black and white backlit in front of a blown out window? Not exactly realism (unless your fully colour blind and having a migraine maybe), but Im more than happy to dwell in the past with my... Bayesian priors? ; )
 
I have produced this "look" from the red with the after effect filters that he is using...not really HDR in my book...close but not the same at all

Matthew Gorveatte said:
You are right; but not really if you think I just opened this file in photoshop and tone-mapped it, with the photo-matrix pro plugin. This is very different from that. More what you are talking about. real hdr. I am a photographer and have been making hdr's for a while so i took my pipeline knowledge of that to make a video out out of the output files from my camera. I have it automated now. takes me 6 input sets to get this out of the video camera. I am shooting on red this week to do the same to that clip. this was a test out of a very low bit depth camera. So the high bit depth of the red will help me out for sure. you will see a vast improvement to any footage that i can use this technique on. this is no need for two cameras. and you can have movement for real time in hdr. from any nice video camera. I will be making the automation to run on red raw files. so you can drag and drop the r3d file on to the program and it will pump out the video after you own input sets, of creative choice. You can Email me at

matthewgorveatte@gmail.com

here is the video in discussion.

http://www.pinkbike.com/video/124664/
Click to expand...
 
obin said:
I have produced this "look" from the red with the after effect filters that he is using...not really HDR in my book...close but not the same at all
Click to expand...

What AE filter have you used for this look ?..How would real HDR look ?..
 
It looks like bad HDR. Which is quite a cool effect in a way. Personally I think more needs to be done to make it look good as well as look like dodgy HDR, but well done for the proof of concept. Very interesting indeed. Lots of potential.
 
More like tone mapped footage but wow, i'm sure that took forever! Great job.
 
I've had a look at HDR image mapping and it looks great. I think it can be over used and some images I've seen have looked fake, like if it was computed generated, and wasn't pleasing to the eyes. Its great for bringing out detail that would have been Lost in the Shadows (wasn't that a song from Lost Boys?), anyway you have to limit its use so you don't over do it. Unless that's what you are aiming for.

Great news the Scarlet & Epic is planned to have HDR. But as they say, "Everything is subject to change". As RED's rivals are introducing HDR in to video cameras I think RED will not be leaving it out.
 
Miltos Pilalitos said:
Hmmm sorry to be the one to say it but there is nothing HDR about those 2 clips.
Click to expand...

I believe they are. I don't see the point though in these 2 clips as there is still an element of light available to film in the same manner.

It looks like it has been filmed on a cheap camera as there is a lot of noise in the dark areas where it has been lightened by HDR processing. I think the RED cameras would do a much better job.

HDR at this extreme looks ok if thats what you want, but it doesn't really float my boat.

This link to a photo of New York just looks false and too much like CGI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_York_City_at_night_HDR_edit1.jpg

This image looks too much..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:StLouisArchMultExpToneMapped.jpg

Where this one looks just right...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:StLouisArchMultExpCDR.jpg

I just like things to look as true to what the eye sees, but with the softness of film. :cheers2:
 
Just a quick note for those who end up here, Epic HDR is discussed in more detail with EXAMPLES in this new thread: http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=49668

Here's a bit of a teaser Jim posted on the new thread. (hint: count the number of tones in the test chart!)
1284304515.jpg
:w00t:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top