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 :)

What does HDR video look like?

This page is hilarious :-) LOL
 
Deanan said:
Tonemapping doesn't have to look ugly and bad as most people do it.

Proper tonemapping doesn't have halos or make things look somewhat solarized.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Gavin, tone-mapping isn't good or bad, it is a practice. It is all on the creators.

And even if you know how to avoid halos, if you use so much DR that a given frame looks un-realistic to a negative degree, it is on you. What you do with the DR is a creative choice. You are responsible, you are "good" or "bad".

0.02
 
Well, I for one applaud the guy for trying something new. The first shot is beautiful and if it had the title "1st Epic HDRx Sample"... everyone on here would be going crazy.

Remember.... this was an example of his experiment with HDR, not a film that needs tearing apart. Maybe he was trying to show each extreme of having HDR footage?
 
Last edited:
Well then there's always the Spheron HDR video camera:

http://www.vizworld.com/2010/07/spheron-vrs-liveaction-hdr-video-sequence/

Although, I talked to the guys at Siggraph and it sounds like they have developed a camera that is way out of the purchasing level of most, however, they seemed very interested to have it used for making films as they have so far had clients only for scientific applications. If I had a project ready that could use it, I'd have contacted them immediately, but right now I'm more into motion capture CGI than anything. Oh well... =P

By the way, anybody have any idea how much one of the beam splitters mentioned in the Vimeo page costs? If it's not too much, I may have to look into another 5D Mark II. I like the idea of this but I'd like to see it without the extreme HDR effects, just something more practical.
 
I too applaud this guy for trying something new. Now we know we can get far greater latitude, possibly closer to that of, or even exceeding film on 2 DSLRs. So for about $5K we can get the dynamic range of film cameras. Does no one see the value in this? Of course, minus all the other line skipping, skew, compression, etc... artifacts.

Maybe if we replaced the often synonymous with bad tone mapping term HDR with far greater dynamic range, it might sound more attractive. That's all HDR is, high dynamic range, which is just more latitude than the cameras we're used it. What you choose to do with that increased DR is up to you, whether it be bad tone mapping or a realistic look.
 
Roberto Lequeux said:
Exactly.

Gavin, tone-mapping isn't good or bad, it is a practice. It is all on the creators.

And even if you know how to avoid halos, if you use so much DR that a given frame looks un-realistic to a negative degree, it is on you. What you do with the DR is a creative choice. You are responsible, you are "good" or "bad".

0.02
Click to expand...

I'm not saying tone-mapping is bad. I'm saying Bad Tonemapping is bad. :D
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
Tons of examples of quality HDR images, you just can't tell they're HDR. Films are chalk full of sky replacements. Usually those skies are blown out in the original film plates. The problem with "HDR" tone-mapping is that it's almost always unsupervised.

For the most part people don't demo footage with "auto-levels" but somehow people see the word HDR and it's "Auto-Fix to the max!"

Correct use of tone-mapping will probably involve at least rough rotoscoping and localized direction on the part of the artist. The goal of an HDR image in my opinion is for the viewer to be blissfully unaware of how many shots it took to achieve.
Click to expand...

Amen!

However... I've always wondered about tone-mapping videos extremely for stylistic reasons like in hallucination and fantasy sequences.
 
I saw that video and thought "ugly" but appreciated the attempt and with a little adjustment, it could make some really great looking images.

The problem I see is that this video has made it onto other websites and people actually seem to think this is "gorgeous" "beautiful" and "amazing." Those adjectives are all purely subjective of course, but it is rather disappointing that this video is what some people WANT their footage to look like.
 
Thor Melsted said:
Yeah, that video looks just awful. Not an example of HDR that should be shown to anyone who actually knows what those initials stand for.
The tonemapping on that shot of the guy was practically vomit inducing, IMHO.

The examples posted here by Gavin are proper HDR, and are examples of what I hope HDRx will bring us closer to being able to achieve without multiple passes.

Actually, the same beam splitter method, using two RED One cameras yielded infinitely superior results: http://vimeo.com/12828140
Click to expand...


It would have been nice to see a properly exposed single camera shot of the same scene rather than just the over/under.
 
I found it hilarious how two 5Ds create 2X the aliasing. I also found it hilarious how so many comentors on the Vimeo page thought it was awesome. Who are these people!?
Anyway, already the MX has more dynamic range than can look right in a single image if extreme curves are used - and without introducing noise. However, we use masks on windows, masks on the dark underside of awnings, etc and layers in AE - one layer at ISO 300 and another at maybe 800 or 1200. It doesn't look HDR-ish, it just loosk natural and like everything is exposed correctly. The thing is we do this carefully and with attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top