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 :)

Its time to introduce a HDRI workflow

HD Bubaloo said:
I have explained this already. Until you can freeze time, it is not possible if we are talking about HDR in regards to moving pictures. In the stop-go animation world, sure. Anything else needs repeatable camera movement, operation, subjects, etc all in unison.

This is why Jesus invented PreViz and regular composites.
Click to expand...

Dude, see my post above - You don't need to freeze time to capture HDRI...
 
I'm sorry your wrong. Outside of building a camera from scratch like I said way before you did on this post (multiple sensors, with different exposures, optical splitters) with the Scarlet, Red or Epic or any other camera so far developed or announced it is not possible if following the guidelines of HDR.

By its very process you are breaking the rules of physics if you do not suspend animation. (with exception of building a custom camera like I described several pages back)
You cannot have a slighty off axis or parallel and gang them, they have to be the same perspective from the same angle.

This whole thread is really dumb.
 
And I have contributed to it quite a bit. For that I am sorry.
 
HD Bubaloo said:
I'm sorry your wrong. Outside of building a camera from scratch like I said way before you did on this post (multiple sensors, with different exposures, optical splitters) with the Scarlet, Red or Epic or any other camera so far developed or announced it is not possible if following the guidelines of HDR.

By its very process you are breaking the rules of physics if you do not suspend animation. (with exception of building a custom camera like I described several pages back)
You cannot have a slighty off axis or parallel and gang them, they have to be the same perspective from the same angle.

This whole thread is really dumb.
Click to expand...

You should stop insulting others and get a copy of "Optics for dummies".
How do You think the prism works for separate R, G and B sensors in 3CCD (and now also 3CMOS) environment. According to You that the each color component will not align with the others...

Same way You can do 2x RGB CMOS (bayer) and "slow" one by the use of ND in its optical path.

And BTW I have been discussing this issue in another threads way before You have mentioned in this one. My report on this is a part of 2005/2006 R&D report to my "then current" employer EYEdentify Inc. in Tokyo Japan, as their head of R&D department...

Get a grip mate...
 
HD Bubaloo said:
This whole thread is really dumb.
Click to expand...

Just by saying that You must be really **** - I don't want to hurdle insults...

This issue (HDRI capture by motion picture cameras) is by far the MOST IMPORTANT one, as this is the ONLY REMAINING BARRIER that separates digital cinematography from traditional 35 mm...

Jim has clearly mentioned in his thread the differences between RED (digital) and film. The dynamic range (latitude) of 35 mm is the only thing superior in 35 mm acquisition. HDRI will put an end to this...
 
"You should stop insulting others and get a copy of "Optics for dummies"."
isn't that what you are doing?

Your right Peter, i'm an idiot, you have convinced me. Please post pictures of your working HDR camera for us to see.

I am excited to see what work you have done on this and eagerly wait to see your results. Now I feel foolish.
 
Just to clarify this for You (HD Bubaloo) - the camera is custom build (and will have to be by RED if they want to go HDRI) and it has SINGLE lens (therefore POV). It is the optical path after the lens that is split for each sensor. The best way of doing this is to use "semi-transparent" mirror, which on its own acts as ND filter. therefore the first reflected image "has more light" and the subsequent is darker (read underexposed). By the time the light hits both sensors it has travelled the exact same distance from the lens. Hence the lack of need to "freeze" time...
 
The only downside of this is that one will need a lot more light (read faster lenses) as compared to normal (non HDRI) capture in the same conditions. But this is easily overcome...

Of course the camera will need 2 (or 3) of the same sensors and more complex processing boards resulting in a bit more expensive model - Could this be EPIC? (I don't see why not)
 
I know you can build a camera to do that. That was already discussed. I was talking about existing cameras (and the need to suspend time). Maybe that is where you lost your way.
 
HD Bubaloo said:
IMTHATONEGUY: I see what your are saying but keeping true to the process, it is different. The same in the long run, but you cannot just re-define the existing process to fit a new ideology of what you would like the outcome to be.
Just give it a new name and don't point at an existing workflow and say its kind of the same when infact it has a process that is defined.

not busting balls, just being technically honest.
Click to expand...

The existing 'process' is a hack. There is no HDR "true" process. It's just High Dynamic Range.

If you render a 32 bit image from Brazil or Mental Ray or Renderman. It's simply a more accurate version of the exact same scene with 8 bits.

If you have some really fancy film which captures 16 stops of light it'll be an HDR image... and it won't even be digitized.

I'm not relabelling things. A 16bit tiff with 16bits worth of color information is still an HDR file.

The idea that you need multiple exposures for an HDR image is exactly the same sort of misconception which creates confusion. Such as "I can export a raw image 3 times and recombine it to get an "HDR" image. When all you've done is reconstruct the original through convoluted means.

What most people think of "HDR" is actually a "tone mapped" image. They are not one and the same. You can tonemap any image with more than 1 stop of information.

Which is why "It's time to introduce a HDRI workflow" is an absurd statement. As far as every program you'll ever use is concerned HDRI workflow and high bitdepth workflow are one and the same.
 
Both HD Bubaloo and im.thatoneguy are absolutely right.
For one, people actually mean tone mapping when they see these pretty HDRI pictures. On the other hand, HDRI process requires as less movement as you can possible get, something that will be impossible in motion capture unless you learned how to perfectly freeze time. That’s why it can only be used as HD Bubaloo mentioned it , in stop motion animations and also why it is always recommended to shoot with the use of tripods while shooting an HDRI image.
The tone mapping can be somewhat recreated through carefull post processing work.
 
Thinks will go a lot easier when You stop mixing "official" HDRI meant for still capture with "practical" HDRI that will work just fine for moving pictures without the need for "freezing" time.

As I have mentioned before You the limitation is the current dynamic range of CMOS sensors. Once in the future this is overcome - You will only need one sensor to do the job. For a realistic solution that works just fine for now You only need 2 exposures to get enough latitude to compete with film.

And this is what this issue is all about. To match or exceed the DR of 35mm film, not to go overboard with 32-bit OpenEXR images (which we have specifically removed from our 4K restoration workflow due to the cumbersome handling of the format that prevents real-time applications). Mind You - OpenEXR is great, just not suitable for motion picture acquisition.

All You really need is 16-bit data, but no (current) single sensor gives You the latitude to fill this. There comes the need for 2 sensors with slightly offset exposures...

If You want an HDRI camera that You can buy today (without the need for "freezing" time) just buy the new ARRIFLEX-D21...

But I know this is possible for much less money - I hope RED jumps in.
For all we know EPIC could be HDRI (read camera with DR equal or greater then 35mm film - not 32-bit HDRI OpenEXR whatever), which could justify the $40000,- price-tag...
 
PS: It actually makes more sense for motion picture camera (that is much faster then still) to be HDRI, then still. With still photography You take a lot of time to get your exposures - therefore the need to "freeze" time, which You can't. That is why you CAN get real HDRI images by multi-sensor rather then multi-exposure. It does work - full stop...
 
Hmm somehow great photography and cinematography was achieved for many decades without HDRI. Perhaps it's also a bit wise to simply learn a lot about contrast control of the image through filtration and lighting?
 
NoahK said:
Hmm somehow great photography and cinematography was achieved for many decades without HDRI. Perhaps it's also a bit wise to simply learn a lot about contrast control of the image through filtration and lighting?
Click to expand...

HDRI is not some kind of lazy hack for people who don't know how to properly expose an image. It has applications in visual fx for doing image based lighting, it will someday be displayable when we have hdr monitors, and it can be used to create surreal photographs with a dynamic range far beyond what the human eye can see. Still, even as a method to gain extra control over your image in post, it's incredibly useful. I can't believe anyone would criticize a move toward increased dynamic range! :blink:
 
kmikami said:
HDRI is not some kind of lazy hack for people who don't know how to properly expose an image. It has applications in visual fx for doing image based lighting, it will someday be displayable when we have hdr monitors, and it can be used to create surreal photographs with a dynamic range far beyond what the human eye can see. Still, even as a method to gain extra control over your image in post, it's incredibly useful. I can't believe anyone would criticize a move toward increased dynamic range! :blink:
Click to expand...

Whoa easy- just pointing out the alternative view brother. Keep your powder HDRI...

Noah
 
...and it can be used to create surreal photographs with a dynamic range far beyond what the human eye can see. Still, even as a method to gain extra control over your image in post, it's incredibly useful. I can't believe anyone would criticize a move toward increased dynamic range!
Click to expand...

Using terms like "surreal" and "range far beyond what the human eye can see" is exactly why I don't like 99.9% of the HDR images I see. They don't look real. Some people dig them, I find them aesthetically displeasing. Very unnatural. Ideally I want to see as close to what the human eye perceives, not way under with black shadows and blown out highlites, nor a range with too much shadow detail and too much detail in brights all at the same time. It's funky. I welcome technology to provide wider gamuts of color and dynamic range, but only if it makes things closer to reality, not further away.

I think one of the easiest ways to recongize that a videographer or photographer has (or has not) honed his/her craft yet is simply by looking at the lighting in their captures. Learning how light is read by film or a sensor, and then controlling/creating, or waiting for proper light is what separates the great stuff from the bad/okay stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top