Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

  • 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 :)

Off the chart...

Jim, is this development advanced enough that now more likely to see HDR mode enabled upon release?
 
Its would be nice if you guys can show some pictures !! For people like me that THINK IN IMAGES and not words and numbers!!
 
I'll give you some clues on HDRx©...

1. What we are doing has never been done before.

2. We have different (variable) HDRx© modes.

3. The test Michael Cioni saw was 18 stops.

4. We have a lot of work to do to characterize and implement variable HDRx© in EPIC.

5. We need a new chart. :-)

More details when we have the faintest idea of what we are doing... :-)

Jim
 
I'll give you some clues on HDRx©...

1. What we are doing has never been done before.

2. We have different (variable) HDRx© modes.

3. The test Michael Cioni saw was 18 stops.

4. We have a lot of work to do to characterize and implement variable HDRx© in EPIC.

5. We need a new chart. :-)

More details when we have the faintest idea of what we are doing... :-)

Jim

Hell yeah!
 
aarrrgh, this is killing me. while i love you guys and all that you do, sometimes i just wish you'd let the images do the talking. expectations are now totally off the charts; if it isnt mind-shatteringly good people are going to be disappointed. (i'm sure it will be very, very good but the hype...)

edit: ok, if it is a usable 18 stops you guys deserve all the hype and more!
 
If Jim teased you to the point you suddenly jumped off your third floor window breaking every geek bone in your body, you would still have to fight the urge to thank him.
He is the most interesting man alive. ;)

The thing is, there have been some 'meh' tease threads for me lately. And then they do this. And they've got me ⌘-R'ing this page like :mad2:

I'll go take a :bath: now and come back to :drool: some more later.
 
I'm very much enjoying the speculation. (But not nearly as much as I'm enjoying the images and movies).

Graeme

OK, let me try:

Solutuion 1 - No temporal artefacts:

Because EPIC can do 120fps, we can do temporal 5x sub-subsumpling. That's just over 2 stops increase with no motion artefacts. Simply, divide the exposure time by 5 smaller exposures, average for highlights, sum for blacks.
Subsumpling more is bandwidth limited. Noise would go down with additive effect of sub-samples, some pixel massaging may result in, say 3 extra stops. 13 + 3 = 16 stops that's certainly HDR territory.

Solution 2 - With temporal artefacts:

Same as 1, but samples have different exposure time of each sub-sample.
The motion artefacts may be minimised by interleaving short and long exposures within a single integrated frame. Motion blur may be fragmented.

Clearly 16+ stops limited only by the highest shutter speed.

Am I close? :banghead:
 
I'll give you some clues on HDRx©...

1. What we are doing has never been done before.

2. We have different (variable) HDRx© modes.

3. The test Michael Cioni saw was 18 stops.

4. We have a lot of work to do to characterize and implement variable HDRx© in EPIC.

5. We need a new chart. :-)

More details when we have the faintest idea of what we are doing... :-)

Jim


I'll take that as confirmation that the test indicates a capability beyond 18 stops :laugh:

The fact that it is variable I'll take to mean that there is a (are) tradeoffs.
 
OK, let me try:

Solutuion 1 - No temporal artefacts:

Because EPIC can do 120fps, we can do temporal 5x sub-subsumpling. That's just over 2 stops increase with no motion artefacts. Simply, divide the exposure time by 5 smaller exposures, average for highlights, sum for blacks.
Subsumpling more is bandwidth limited. Noise would go down with additive effect of sub-samples, some pixel massaging may result in, say 3 extra stops. 13 + 3 = 16 stops that's certainly HDR territory.

Solution 2 - With temporal artefacts:

Same as 1, but samples have different exposure time of each sub-sample.
The motion artefacts may be minimised by interleaving short and long exposures within a single integrated frame. Motion blur may be fragmented.

Clearly 16+ stops limited only by the highest shutter speed.

Am I close? :banghead:

Nope.

Jim
 
I'll take that as confirmation that the test indicates a capability beyond 18 stops :laugh:

The fact that it is variable I'll take to mean that there is a (are) tradeoffs.

Pretty much my conclusions. Can't wait to find out more about HDRx!
 
16-bit "half" storage a la OpenEXR should be fine for storing bayer data, and it can handle 32 stops with adequate precision within each stop.
 
Back
Top