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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 19, 2010, 1:44 AM   #121
Senior Member
 
MartinSykes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 854
Default

I think eventually RAW will become dominant over multple exposures but it's not there yet. even where a scene has so much range that RAW can't capture it now, it will in the future. I'm sure 32-bit or 64-bit RAW will be here soon.

RAW also has a number of benefits such as not having problems with alignment and is also suitable for high-speed photography or anything that moves such as people, wildlife, motorsports etc.

The downside at the moment is that I'm under the impression that limitations of the camera sensor mean that colours aren't captured faithfully at the low end and the signal/noise ratio is high. For now, I think multiple exposures will still give you better results in some but not all situations but it's just a matter of time until the sensors get so good that multiple exposures are unnecessary. You could in theory split a 64-bit RAW into 7 overlapping 16-bit RAWs which would be exactly the same as 7 exposures but all done in a single shot.
MartinSykes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 19, 2010, 7:20 AM   #122
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,646
Default

I hope what you say is true. I just hope they dont drop 2D for 3D.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 19, 2010, 6:09 PM   #123
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 95
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinSykes View Post
I think eventually RAW will become dominant over multple exposures but it's not there yet. even where a scene has so much range that RAW can't capture it now, it will in the future. I'm sure 32-bit or 64-bit RAW will be here soon.
...
Martin,

I agree. There is very little I've seen on this forum where a RAW wouldn't (or hasn't) produced a better result than HDR. For better RAW's, the main requirement seems to be sensor size. Unfortunately bigger sensors are more expensive and don't suit the trend to smaller cameras. The mania for megapixels also drives the market from better quality ... smaller photon buckets mean lower quality RAWs.

I'm not sure about the bit depth, as to whether this is a limitation of the sensor or the electronics. It would still need bigger buckets to provide more photons to count.

As the article points out, better RAW processing in some packages will also help, in avoiding throwing away those important highlights and dark areas.

At the end of the day, even with even better RAW's, the HDR hype will still sway those who don't want to delve deeper, or those who are limited to jpgs by cheaper cameras.

Last edited by amcam; Apr 19, 2010 at 6:12 PM.
amcam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 20, 2010, 3:30 AM   #124
Senior Member
 
MartinSykes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 854
Default

I think HDR is a good and valid approach but it should just be one tool in your toolbox - it doesn't do everything but then again you can use it with other tools. I think the multiple exposures is a short-term thing because really all the software is doing is combining them to create a 64-bit RAW or similar because the camera can't produce them in one shot yet. You can see a small impact of the HDR in your surf shot. In the Sagelight one the wave crests at the fronnt are quite dark but in my AutoHDR one they are much brighter - it knows they need to be lightened more than other identical pixels in the image because of where they are. Most non-HDR processes tend to work across the whole image I think which is fast but means local details don't stand out as much.

@bynx - 3D for the amateur won't really catch on in a big way. To get decent stereoscopy you need two cameras with a separation the same as your eyes multiplied by the zoom factor. Even with a 2x zoom that's getting unwieldy.
MartinSykes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 20, 2010, 3:36 AM   #125
Senior Member
 
MartinSykes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 854
Default

Forgot to say - v1.70 now available has noise reduction built in. Will add some switches in a later version to turn these non-HDR steps on and off.
MartinSykes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 20, 2010, 6:32 PM   #126
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 95
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinSykes View Post
Forgot to say - v1.70 now available has noise reduction built in.
Martin,
I'd be interested to see your latest take on the sunrise. I assume it has kept the yellow ?
amcam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 21, 2010, 2:06 AM   #127
Senior Member
 
MartinSykes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 854
Default

I haven't redone the sunrise - I 'm still losing the yellow in the RW2->Tiff conversion before my program touches it. Will see if I can find a more faithful conversion route and redo it then.
MartinSykes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2010, 3:43 PM   #128
Senior Member
 
Cherokee Outlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 187
Default

Great tool, but I must be doing something wrong.

When the image is done processing, I pick up a lot of noise. Is the thought then to take the JPEG and pull into another program for more PP to clean it up?
Cherokee Outlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2010, 12:49 AM   #129
Senior Member
 
MartinSykes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 854
Default

It depends on the input image. It doesn't create new noise but it can boost the noise that is already there. In most images that's not a problem but if you have a particularly noisy image to start with then yes, you can do extra pp on it but it isn't usually necessary. Can you post your original and processed versions for me to look at?
MartinSykes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2010, 8:35 AM   #130
Senior Member
 
Cherokee Outlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 187
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinSykes View Post
It depends on the input image. It doesn't create new noise but it can boost the noise that is already there. In most images that's not a problem but if you have a particularly noisy image to start with then yes, you can do extra pp on it but it isn't usually necessary. Can you post your original and processed versions for me to look at?
Martin, I'm sure that's it. I am new at this and still learning how to take better images. I don't know how to resize them to post here but I am loading an editing software this weekend and will play around with it.

Thanks for this tool and your prompt reply.
Cherokee Outlaw 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 12:34 AM.