Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > HDR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 12, 2010, 5:24 PM   #111
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 95
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinSykes View Post
I like the Sagelight result as a picture but it seems to have removed some of the red colour cast caused by the rising/setting sun which alters the mood somewhat.
I think Sagelight is a fantastic product but I bought it a month too early ... you can now get it during an April promo for just a $1 ... not to ne missed.

Sagelight makes it very quick to get whatever effect you want. It is very fast and you can play with the various sliders to see the effects instantly. Here's a version that keeps more of the red.

amcam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2010, 6:28 PM   #112
Senior Member
 
Ordo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: BsAs
Posts: 3,452
Default

People better check here:

http://www.sagelighteditor.com/gizmo.html

Sagelight is not for free, and will end up costing more than Photoshop Elements 8, and will not give you any HDR auto or not.
Martin's software is free.
Can't see what's your point amcam. I'm not trusting your picks.
Ordo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2010, 3:48 PM   #113
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 95
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ordo View Post
People better check here:

http://www.sagelighteditor.com/gizmo.html

Sagelight is not for free,
As I said above, you can buy it for $1 during April, rather than the regular price.


Quote:
and will end up costing more than Photoshop Elements 8,
What is the basis for your statement ?

Your statement is totally incorrect. Sagelight's RRP is about a third the price of Elements.


Quote:
and will not give you any HDR auto or not.
I have not suggested that it will. I have shown it gives great looking results very quickly. Have a look at the youtube videos or the Sagelight forum.

BTW I have no personal connection of any kind with this company. I spent a lot of time looking for a photo editor and this was what seemed to me by far the best at the best price.
amcam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2010, 5:30 PM   #114
Senior Member
 
Ordo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: BsAs
Posts: 3,452
Default

I checked the link and you're right amcam. But remember i got PE8 for less than $50 (legal, full, registered version).
This is my poiint: this thread is all about one jpeg or raw pick auto HDR, so i can't find
your comparison much valid. I've been using Martin's program since it was presented here and never got such a bad result as you show.
BTW: If you want a full editor you can get Gimp, totally free. Regards.
Ordo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2010, 2:21 PM   #115
Senior Member
 
MartinSykes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 854
Default

Amcam's picture has uncovered a bug - a mixup between the HSV and HSL colourspaces. I'm working on a fix and will post a new version soon.

[EDIT] New version 165 available fixes the bug. The results are more than a little bit better i think . Picture with v165 on Avg/Avg settings:


Last edited by MartinSykes; Apr 14, 2010 at 3:12 PM.
MartinSykes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2010, 1:54 AM   #116
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 95
Default

Definitely a big improvement Martin. However the yellow area on the clouds in the centre is blown out to white. Is this a bug perhaps ?

The auto HDR also loses the detail of the small waves/ripples at the lower left.

Ordo. I've been a GIMP user for years. It is a useful product but Sagelight is far superior for rapid photo editing.

Last edited by amcam; Apr 16, 2010 at 1:57 AM.
amcam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2010, 11:15 AM   #117
Senior Member
 
MartinSykes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 854
Default

The clouds aren''t blown to white but they are close. v1.66 is more gentle at the extremes and generally gives better results as I've made adjustments for all sorts of things like being a bit more careful with reds which tend to look too harsh. It also gets into the shadows a bit more so the bottom left corner is a bit better.

The loss of yellow is because I'm converting the RW2 into a .tiff using dcraw and I can't seem to find any settings that preserve the colours exactly. I hope this shows up OK but here is a screenshot of the image thumbnails. There is clearly more yellow in the original RW2 file:

MartinSykes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2010, 4:28 PM   #118
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 95
Default

The RAW is 14 bit so any display is an 8 bit interpretation of it. I assume the tiff is an 8 bit version ? As long as the RAW is read in a fashion that operates on 16 bits per channel, nothing should be lost (Sagelight does this, GIMP doesn't do it fully yet).

The first article in this blog discusses RAW processing: http://sagelighteditor.wordpress.com/
"Before I researched it, I didn’t realize the extent to which many RAW conversion programs will damage your image before you even see it."

Perhaps the next step for your package is to read RAW's and process in 16 bit per channel ?

Last edited by amcam; Apr 17, 2010 at 5:38 PM.
amcam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2010, 2:36 AM   #119
Senior Member
 
MartinSykes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 854
Default

I though I was using the 16-bit but just found I'm converting to 8-bit in the middle by accident. Working on a fix now.

Thanks for the link - will take a look.

[EDIT - v1.68 is proper 16-bit now all the way through. I wrote my own Tiff reader code so I know it works with tiffs created by dcraw but not sure about other sources. Here it is again in the new version but still no yellow until I get the conversion sorted out]


Last edited by MartinSykes; Apr 18, 2010 at 10:48 AM. Reason: spelling
MartinSykes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2010, 5:12 PM   #120
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 95
Default

Hi Martin,
I've just read the article again "Some RAW Truth about RAW Converters"

http://sagelighteditor.wordpress.com...rs/#comment-61

It made me wonder about multi image HDR's (maybe this should be a new thread). One would expect scenes with high dynamic range, taken with camera jpgs to benefit from multi image HDR, however one would have thought this would be far less true with RAW's. What the article indicates is that poor RAW processing may have generated a need for multi image HDR's because of a truncation of highs and lows. A well processed RAW should avoid the need for multi image HDR, except when noise is very excessive in dark areas. It would appear and be reasonable to assume, that adding multiple images and errors in aligning them, is going to increase noise and this should be balanced against any potential gains.
amcam is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:35 AM.