What is Digg?117 Comments
- chris8535, on 10/12/2007, -17/+170This is likely NOT an HDR image. If it is, it is not done well. The purpose of HDR is to show the actual number of F-Stops the human eye sees (around 22) in order to make a photo that is more REALISTIC. This is simply someone who discovered the Shadow/Highlight filter on Photoshop. Seriously, go do it to ANY of your photos and it takes about 5 seconds. And it destroys them, making the original unprintably grainy and distorted. Diggers seem to be obsessed with the instant gratification factor so much that they rarely notice that the photograph is not that good to begin with.
- vemerge, on 10/12/2007, -10/+71While it is amazing I think it might be a little overdone. Good chunks of the photo don't look remotely realistic and look as though they would belong in a video game somewhere. Either way, dugg. Amazing photo.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+64buried for "this one's sick"
- PARAPA, on 10/12/2007, -11/+59Reminds me of the GTA4 trailer
- mark1372, on 10/12/2007, -13/+60This is NOT HDR, goddammit!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+39ZOMG AMAZING!!
no wait, it sucks. It's not even real HDR like,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/New_York_City_at_night_HDR.jpg - directedition, on 10/12/2007, -5/+32Good God people, why can't we agree on what HDR is? Okay, let's get down with this.
Dynamic-Range = Also known as 'latitude'. It describes how much or how little light can hit the emulsion or CCD without overexposing or underexposing. One could view this in terms of scene contrast and shadow/highlight detail.
High Dynamic-Range = Extended latitude. A greater range of exposures than is typically recorded.
I fail so see where the human eye comes into this equation. I would say HDR is best used to give us a new view of the world. Why would I want to see what my eye see? I can already see that. What I CAN'T see with my own eyes is a scene where everything has the same exposure, which is what we see here. But hey, I would still call an image that imitates the human eye 'HDR'. All HDR means is dynamic-range beyond the norm. Stop acting like it's some sort of etched in stone set of standards that defines it. It's an ART. - Th0Rr, on 10/12/2007, -8/+31yawn. but also,
stop
making
titles
like
this
please - mmmike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15HDR images are (usually--there are many methods) composed of 3+ images, each with a different exposure. the basic set up for a 3 image HDR is one image exposed normally, one over exposed ~1 stop(for shadow detail), and one under exposed ~1 stop(for highlight detail).
- DamnMan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12@diabolicdiablo
Interesting question.
Theoretically you should be able to capture HDR video as long as each exposure is shot from the same exact angle and records the same exact thing.
The HDR algorithm doesn't care if its a single frame from a movie or a picture.
Theoretically, Communism works too. - FastZ, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9One of the comments for that picture left this as a link. It's a much better picture than the one dugg for this digg.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/173/392094962_2174dc7dec_o.jpg - h0dg3s, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Marked as lame, because it is. It isn't "AMAZING" at all.
- Twoodge, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14Doubtfully HDR, and there are actually thousands of better images from Flickr that you could have posted here. Hate to be a pompous ass, but I'd much rather have some of my photography stuck on my wall than that one. Yeah, it's good, but so good it's "sick"? I think not. Definitely not good enough to hit the front page.
Oh, and for your own comparison, this is probably the one and only time time I'll plug my Flickr page on Digg: http://www.flickr.com/photos/centraljake/sets/72157594584526224/ - wingnut21, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I long for the day when I can post that.
The new image feature/category must be pretty amazing, because it's sure taking a while. - IsaacCubed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Sicccccckkkkk!!! RADICAL!!!
- directedition, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@chris
What do mean 3CCD systems are HDR all the time? A three CCD system has a prism that separates the incoming light into red, green, and blue, and doesn't do anything with respect to modifying exposure. Though a split-image prism (such as what you'd find in a Bolex viewfinder) would make 3CCD HDR practical. Just split the light (full range, not component) into three full-color (read: bayer filter) CCDs with varying exposure and you should get HDR video. Unfortunately the camera would have to be specifically designed just for this purpose. It would cost a lot of money and have some pretty heavily compromised image quality, so I seriously doubt a system like this would ever be practical. - anti_hax0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6dynamic range has nothing to do with color temperature of light
- Bitgod, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Eh, good going, you made it look like a video game
- Moopy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7This is HDR, although it is not stuck in customs' best work, he did have a great church earlier this week, albeit still a little surreal, was stunning and better than this one.
A good definition for HDR would be that because of a camera's inability to capture a wide range of lights and darks like our eye can (think looking at the bright moon and being able to discern some of the dark spots), a technique must be used where 2 or more pictures are taken at different exposures, (usually 3), in which the darks from the overexposed, the lights from the underexposed, and the well lit in the medium are all taken and put together. Depending on the difference of exposure, the time taken between exposures, and techniques used to stitch together can result in different... results. One common affect is that the picture looks drawn or fake, although incredibly stunning, but the apex of HDR is generally considered to be a lifelike mimicry of the eye.
And just because a picture is HDR and doesn't look real doesn't mean you should diss it, it may have been the affect the photographer was going for. - cavar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Amazing waste of my time.
- ohnnyj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Some software such as PhotoMatix Pro will allow you to use one RAW image since RAW is essentially a digital negative.
- Muchocoffee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I take it you are being sarcastic, unless 4129 x 2467 isn't enough for you.
- kennyvader, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10I'm so sick of HDR.
Give it up already. A few "HDR" images look good. But the vast majority just turn out as over-processed junk. - dustysquareback, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Well, I DO like this pic, just cause I do.
But buried for use of the word "sick" in the title. Not to mention all the other stupid sensationalism. - Qdub, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Why the hell wasn't this posted in the "Images" section?
/sarcasm - san1ty, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"sick"?
Is this good or bad? I feel old. - bj00rn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I feel a little bad for saying this, but I don't think that pic deserves to be on the front page at all...
First of all, this is not really a "HDR" image, second, it's heavily photoshopped (Not that there is anything wrong with that, but this image is a bit overdone as a "photo".), third I don't understand the obsession about HDR images on digg, the HDR techniques are basically just meant to make the captures more realistic, because film and digital sensors still aren't very good at capturing large variations in lighting conditions at the same time. It's REALLY easy to do "HDR" images, you can do it both with several captures, or with one image in Photoshop, no big deal, it just takes a couple of minutes.
Anyway, so "Sick" is the new "Amazing" now...? Oh, wait, you also managed to put in the mandatory "Amazing" in there... Ok, nevermind... - marm0lade, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Isn't anyone sick of this "stuck in customs" guy yet?
- AHemp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"...why it is important for them not to get in front of my tripod..."
Hey, uh, guy -- it's Times Square. Get over yourself. - Quidam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Anybody see the next photo of the nyc girl with the taxi in the background? That one's pretty cool too
- IMustBeEmo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6To the above diggers, HDR is when multiple photographs are taken and laced into each other using an HDR algorithm. It combines multiple images for accurate representations of both landscape and the sky, which is not possible in normal photography. HDR makes it so photographs look more like what you actually see as it is hard for cameras to capture accurately both landscape and sky, for example.
- VaporBro, on 10/26/2007, -5/+8We better get it some medicine
- KIERANMULLEN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3HDR Is archived by blending multiple shots together. Some exposures would take longer, and the tv images would be different. This picture the tv picture is the same.
Not accurate.
KieranMullen - FastZ, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Forget about all the other "HDR" images and see New York like you've never seen it before."
I've seen it that way before and I've never even been to New York. - ziki, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Don't hdr images have to be composed of 3 different images with different white balance or something?
- omarciddo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Damn, I thought we'd seen the last of the HDR pictures on the front page.
- defectDS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The definition of HDR is becoming as vague as "Web 2.0."
Look it up, people! - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No, 1024x612 is not large.
But the original picture is large. 4129 x 2467: http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=440698504&size=o - shadyk8o, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2WOW. Simply amazing.
- EmperorAwesome, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Wa wa we wa.
Dzienkuje. - Sun.Surfin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6UGH, DIGG TEAM!!@321
I want a Stuck in Customs category! Eh, seriously, what's with every image of his getting dugg? If I was that obsessed with his stuff, I think I'd have it bookmarked by now... - Scarfy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Why do these things always find their way on to the top 10 list of ALL STORIES IN ALL TOPICS? It isn't HDR, it's never HDR, always just overdone cartoon-like images that anyone with a decent camera and little knowledge of photography can create. DAMMIT.
- tunafizzle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21600 diggs for a shot of times square that looks like dog *****? You guys are ***** morons, go ahead and bury me but this shot is pretty god damn boring and overdone.
- ohnnyj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Also, there are ways to strip out the xiff information and make Photoshop think you have 3+ files.
- chroko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I don't understand why anyone would want to go there, much less think it's "amazing". Good job on the photography, but that scene is a horrible orgy of commerce. It's like all the worst aspects of television made into reality.
The brands that I recognize in that image are: ABC, Starbucks, News Corp., Fox News, Chevrolet, GMC, Yahoo, Panasonic, JVC, Target, Discover, Budweiser, NASDAQ, Cingular, Hard Rock, Reuters, Sharp. Congratulations on the conspiracy to sneak your advertising into the American dream. - oifish, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2For some reason it reminds me of Deus Ex.
- bingo000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow, that's what I call a true HDR. Not a screen shot from Grand theft Auto!
- mvannatter, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This post rocks! Sweet, dugg it.
- cklol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The term "HDR" is so overused hese days... as people have said, this isn't HDR. It has just become another hype word like "high tech" (high technology? what the ***** is that supposed to mean?) that pisses me off when I hear it.
- etruscan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Or... better yet (and so the submitters get the point) stop digging them to the front page. Sure, the content may be good - but it cheapens this site.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 112 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
