Indeed; I've yet to find a better example pic of that, than this one:
http://www.kk.org/cooltools/hdr2sm.jpg
« The three bracketed exposures (over, under and normal) on the left are combined to make the well-balanced, very detailed image on the right. »
http://www.kk.org/cooltools/archives/002541.php |
Wow, amazing!
I'll try it with a landscape soon (now I can't, it's too late) |
The first time I heard about HDR was with a walk through tutorial for this pic.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/_michael/2206639217/in/pool-hdrsmooth
Some of the HDR images look too cartoonish for me. |
This might make a good built-in optional filter in digital cameras... |
How'd envision that HDR-filter to work, Philipp? After all, this labour-intensive, largely manual photo enhancement technique wouldn't be needed if current freeze-and-render technology was capable of capturing the entire dynamic range, on a par with /or even just a tad closer to/ human eye.... |
I'm not understand this... |
while being on the sub of digi cam's .. gizmodo points me to 160MP cam
thats so so ridicules $21K for a digi cam ??
The 160MP Digital Camera: http://uk.gizmodo.com/2008/01/19/the_160mp_digital_camera_its_a.html |
James, basically the same picture is taken at different exposures to capture different colors and brightnesses of the same scene. Then the photos are edited together to give more detail than you would get out of a single photo.
There's a very detailed tutorial here, even skimming through the pictures you get a very good idea of why it's so interesting:
http://stuckincustoms.com/2006/06/06/548/
My problem with it is it really does make a lot of scenes look very cartoony or like a drawing which is cool initially, but many of them start to look the same. However, for many bright outdoor scenes, it can have dramatic effect without these drawbacks. |
The point with all HDR-"massaged" photography, is that it manages to show the entire, or at least greater, range of black, grays, and off-whites.... something that standard photos (from chemical AND digital processes) can't currently deliver.
While such still photos may lack "dramatic" contrast, and/or even appear flat or mellow, they come much closer to how human eye sees the world (only we're not aware that the eye continuously makes adjustments to the iris, ie. adapts our natural "apperture," to light saturation in each differently-lit part of anything we're watching). |
> While such still photos
Are you referring to HDR or non-HDR? |
>> While such still photos may lack "dramatic" contrast [...]
> Are you referring to HDR or non-HDR?
such = HDR-enhanced 'uns. |
