File :-(, x, )
I made an HDR time lapse Anonymous
I've never seen a HDR, Tonemapped Animation/time lapse film so I gave it a try. It takes for ever to render but it's kinda neat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0i5p1yZReU

Earlier test: http://stits.org/fp/test1.mov

It also takes forever to setup. You take three pictures (+3, 0, -3) per second and then after a few hours (and 10000 images) you render each one (takes about 30 seconds for each) and finally combine them. This is about 10% complete. I'm going to do this in a more interesting place but like I said. I wanted to get the kinks out first.
>> Anonymous
extremely dull, could've at least pointed the camera at the clouds more
>> Anonymous
Yeah, this is just a test run. I've pointed it out my window.

I've got the batch and workflow working now so I can start making a real one.
>> Falldog !2qYdimqiHs
I thought /p/ agreed that HDR sucks.
>> Anonymous
>>137728

I think that HDR correctly used (not to make pictures in INSANO colour) is pretty effective.

Makes the photo look sharper, kind of like when you take a good black and white shot.
>> Falldog !2qYdimqiHs
>>137762
Black and white HDR? I'll have to give that a shot and see how it turns out.
>> Anonymous
>>137786

It realy crisps out the detail in b&w, i use it quite a lot.
>> danchr !AZ2XAk0.RQ
     File :-(, x)
>>137786

This has been up before, but it is a good example of how b/w HDR tends to turn out. Haloing etc becomes even more visible.. I have pretty much given it up.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:07:24 06:11:20Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width482Image Height800
>> Anonymous
>>137798

if you tonemap the picture while its still in color, THEN change it to B&W, You get a nice sharp, correctly exposed shot.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>137798
you're doing it wrong
>> Anonymous
>>137815

let's all bow down to beethy, master of photoshop

oohhhh
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>137805
Haven't posted in this thread before, but I see what this guy is saying. I'll have to try it out with my own B&W work, but it looks pretty good judging from the OP pic. (Pic related, just straight desaturated and resized bicubic.)

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 5.0 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:03:09 19:48:08Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width700Image Height463
>> BurtGummer
     File :-(, x)
>>137817

Yeah, if you dont overkill it with the tonemapping, and avoid too much halo, it comes out nice.

...I experimented with fuzzin up the edges too, seems to work.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera ModelNIKON D80Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:03:10 00:19:32Exposure Time1/40 secF-Numberf/10.0ISO Speed Rating250Focal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1162Image Height778
>> Anonymous
>>137837

It still looks shitty. You could have taken one correctly exposed photo and it would have looked better.
>> BurtGummer
>>137846

True, but HDR isnt about gettin it right, its about making it kooky, but almost right.

Amen.
>> Anonymous
>>137847

This is why HDR is almost always INSTAFAIL.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Why are all the HDR picts I see so horrible? They're blurry and give me a headache. You guys need to learn how to do HDR correctly.

Pict definitely related.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:06:21 20:03:43Exposure Time30 secF-Numberf/10.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/9.9Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length31.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height533RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>137847

No, the way you're doing HDR is to instill extra faggotry into photography when it isn't needed. Fuck.
>> Anonymous
>>137874

looks too fake

like you actually cut out the sky and replaced it with that one

we might know what hdr is but someone else looking at it will think you just replaced the sky
>> Anonymous
>>137878

Maybe, but it still isn't as bad as the others seen already.
>> Anonymous
skys are the only part i have really liked about HDR
>> Anonymous
>>137879

maybe, but i wouldn't call that HDR done correctly
>> Anonymous
>>137878

The sky isn't even the most important part. Look at the interior of the building. I was able to get good shadow and highlights both inside and outside of the building without blowing out anything.
>> Falldog !2qYdimqiHs
>>137878
And we care about those people why?

They're the same ones who like>>137692
>> Anonymous
>>137892

they like the over the edge HDR pictures because of the pretty colors

when they look at>>137874

do you really think they go, wow you managed to "get good shadow and highlights both inside and outside of the building without blowing out anything."

but they'll see the sky and think it's just fake
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>137874

Here's more of my stuff. Look at the controlled contrast between the interior and exterior; no blown-out highlights, no black shadows. This one was made from 3 images.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:06:26 22:44:19Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width533Image Height800
>> Anonymous
>>137894

Much nicer than these other over done ones that look like shit made by unskilled morons who boost everything to the max.
>> Anonymous
>>137894

Mind posting the original exposures to give me an idea what it looks like normally?
>> BurtGummer
     File :-(, x)
Anything crazily bad about mine? Ive avoided halos, the cors are a little heavy but i think it makes it look better..

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera ModelNIKON D80Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:03:10 01:25:41Exposure Time1/40 secF-Numberf/10.0ISO Speed Rating250Focal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1170Image Height783
>> Anonymous
>>137894
well aren't you proud of yourself.

in all seriouness, cool image, good merging. Wouldn't have noticed if you didn't say it.
>> Anonymous
>>137901
I really like the colors. Picture is in focus too. It may lack a little direction. Hard to take a good picture of an intersection at ground level. I like the photo, but I'm not sure what it conveys. Technically though, its fine by me.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>137896

finished product is on the far left. Merged images follow on the right. I think these are the images. Usually I do manual merging, but this time I used PS's HDR merger. I added some curves adjustment and saturation control to the final product.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:03:09 18:36:34Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width2132Image Height800
>> Anonymous
>>137901

The HDR implementation is pretty good...but the photo itself is nothing special. Like>>137906said, it's technically just fine. Just not all that interesting of an image to begin with.
>> Anonymous
>>137908

I prefer the non HDR version.
>> Anonymous
>>137904
I don't know how you could possibly not notice that it's HDR. It's not as bad as some, but it's still pretty bad. The shadows are missing and the local contrast is all screwed up.

These two are pretty good:>>137874
>>137894
>> BurtGummer
     File :-(, x)
>>137906
>>137912

Cool, cool, thanks.

I use Photomatix over Photoshop, it seems to work a lot better. What does Anon use?
>> Anonymous
>>137922

I use Photomatix as well as a program called "qtpfsgui", an addon for QT4.
>> BurtGummer
     File :-(, x)
HDRs also good for Airsoft!

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera ModelCanon DIGITAL IXUS 50Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2008:03:10 02:52:21Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/2.8Focal Length5.80 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1000Image Height767
>> Anonymous
>>137971

You cannot make a HDRI out of a single image.
>> Anonymous
>>138039

tell that to beethy
>> Anonymous
>>137971

This looks like the white balance was adjusted and the exposure brought up a tiny bit. Nothing else.
>> BurtGummer
>>138039

I just did.

>>138054

...it was only adjusted to bring out the details. That was my first effort with Photomatix, I didnt want to go crazy.
>> Beaumont
I know that you will all want to "e-stab" me for this but how does one go about making an HDR image? Sorry, never messed with it before but it might be fun to try just for shits and giggles.
>> Beaumont
http://www.hdrsoft.com/resources/dri.html#capture

I'm dumb. But /p/ ideas are still welcome.
>> Anonymous
>>138056I just did.

lulz

one exposure HDR = fail
>> BurtGummer
>>138059

Yes, as I mentioned, This wasnt me looking for an awesome award winning Image. I wanted to bring out the colour in the original dark image. I could of done it in photoshop, but i chose not to.

Okay One-liner fag?
>> BurtGummer
>>137901was also a one exposure HDR, you idiot...
>> Anonymous
your name should be butthurt faggot instead of what you have now
>> BurtGummer
>>138081

Im not hurting.

Ah whinge whinge whinge, get back on subject chav faggot.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>138061
this can be done with shadow/highlight also
>> Anonymous
>>138088

ahhhhhhh photoshop master, thank you for insighful knowledge about photoshop, you truly are the master
>> Anonymous
just a question about this part :
"You take three pictures (+3, 0, -3) per second"

what is your camera to allow to take 3 shots at a 3Ev step in a second ?
>> Anonymous
>>138141
D3/D300 can both do it, not sure about Canon cameras.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>138141
Auto EV bracketing
>> Anonymous
>>138180
meaning you're not actually taking 3 shots but use photoshop (or another software system) to get the +/- 3Ev exposures right ?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>138188
No. You're actually taking three shots at varying exposures. The Rebel XTi, for example, has a maximum rate of 3fps, which means I set exposure bracketing, fire off three frames of the same scene, and I then have one where the meter says it should be, one over by a stop or two, and one under by a stop or two.
>> Anonymous
>>138179

While the D300 can do exposure bracketing-

It can't do -3,0,+3. The maximum step it can do is 1 ev.

However: The D300 can do better(?) HDR because it can capture -9 to +9 and all the exposures in between with two series of brackets.
>> Anonymous
>>138056

You utter failure, HDRI = High Dynamic Range Image.

ie. 16bits/channel or higher. The pics posted on this board are 8bits, and ONLY 8bits, as are the images taken by the cameras we all use.
Some RAW formats allow for 16bits of precision, but it doesnt add much to the dynamic range.

To get the full range of a true 16bit+ image, you NEED to combine multiple images of different exposures to capture the full range and put it into the one image.

People who post the bullshit one image "HDRI" crap on this board should be banned.
>> BurtGummer
>>138208

HAHAHAHA, Ive never seen anyone so angry about an experimental picture...

Yes, i understand the concept of full 16 bit HDRI, you cretin. Just because I was a little lazy doesnt mean it doesnt look nice. Now calm down before you blow up over a FUCKIN JPEG.
>> BurtGummer
     File :-(, x)
Happy? Its not 3 or more different WHATEVER... but its 16 bit.
>> Anonymous
>>138226

Increasing the colour depth does not add the missing information, you turd.

It's like resampling a 64kbit/s 16khz MP3 into a 320kbit/s 48khz MP3 and expect to get CD quality music.

RESAMPLING DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!
>> Anonymous
>>138141

It's done with a 1D III.

Yeah, that's right /p/. I used a 1D to take this.
>> Anonymous
>>138246
This is epic failure. Also, enjoy your worn-out shutter after several such experiments.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>138247
It's true. Canon shutters, especially the ones they put in their high-end pro line cameras, are like tissue paper.
>> Anonymous
>>138247

In what way would taking one photograph, and then editing the phtos exposure on my pc, damage my shutter?

nonce.
>> Anonymous
>>138247

Jealous much?

This little experiment took about 9,000 exposures. Good thing it's rated for about oh, 200,000?
>> Anonymous
>>138250

Uh, this isn't me. I'm OP.
>> Moha !oW32yACYpk
     File :-(, x)
>>138226

Chromatic aberration makes HDR fail.
This is why we can't have nice things
>> Anonymous
>>138399


I see that effect with my naked eyes.
>> Anonymous
>>138251

So if you do this experiment another nineteen times and never take any other photos you've worn the camera out. Good job, dickless.
>> Anonymous
>>138761

Thanks for doing the math. Stop being jealous now.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
to OP

i think you chose a horrible location for this video.
also, the processing applied is too flat.

do it again though, but fix the above.
>> Anonymous
>>138768

Read>>137723

beethy style HDR will come after.
>> Anonymous
>>138764

Jealous of what?
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>138774
i'm a tard, again

thanks for pointing out
>>137723

i anxiously await your real video!
>> Anonymous
>>138776

Every time anyone posts with a 5D, 1D or 1Ds, there's just gotta some random person complaining.