What is Digg?104 Comments
- korimickster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+106Buried.
Waldo was WAY too easy to find.
/1st Grade - ClassicJBC, on 10/12/2007, -6/+100Don't bother with the full size. The original looks terrible comparatively.
- FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33Impatience results in artifacts... The camera should have been set at a much lower ISO.
- aclements, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28The whole idea of HDR is that it is Photoshopped (or some other program). The images are made by selectively choosing areas from areas of several images with different exposures to create one with the best dynamic range.
- thatsmyaibo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25Yeah, but did you find his glasses, walking stick, binoculars and other useless crap that was hidden in order to get kids to shut up for a car trip?
- Jake2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21@slothlovechunk: HDR vs non-HDR below.
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=163571010&size=l - tsunamisteve, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19I was about to complain about this because we get at least one HDR image on the front page every week, but wow.
- TuxedoMax, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17I see light pollution isn't an issue of major concern in Tokyo. I
- psylence, on 10/12/2007, -12/+24Amazingly *****, could that be any more blurry and still be considered a picture?
- Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Blade Runner.
- kuwan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Am I the only one that thinks that these types of unrealistic HDR images are just pointless and silly from a photographic sense? To me the whole idea of creating an HDR image is to use the increased dynamic range that you get from multiple exposures to create an image that is more realistic, not one that looks like it came out of a comic book. Current digital cameras aren't capable of capturing as much dynamic range as the human eye and thus the need for multiple exposures to create a more realistic HDR scene (i.e. lots of detail in the shadows and highlights).
I just don't see the point to those that like to create an HDR image and then tone-map the hell out of it into something that is completely unrealistic. - Rodzirra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11It was raining, and he was shooting through a window with water all over it. Says so in the picture comments...
- invader, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13"Impatience results in artifacts"
Actually, the higher ISO results in more noise. Shooting digital with JPG rather than RAW results in artifacts.. - Jake2, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15The quality of that thing at full size is terrible... nice image, but not front page-worthy.
@sicc: It's HDR. - Phearce, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@sicc -- HDR = High Dynamic Range. That means multiple images adjusted for the bright and dim portions of the scene were merged. So, technically photoshopped, but not they way you meant.
- sicc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Oh.
=x - synaesthesia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Ah Roppongi...where the skeezers are skeeziest, the clap is plentiful and the beer and vomit flows in the streets like the sea itself.
- Oldschoolhack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Enlarge.... beep, skttah, skttah, skttah, skttah, skttah.
Deckard was totally awesome. - vuke69, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7That original is quite craptastic.
The preview looks awesome though. - evil-doer, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12looks like crap if you ask me.
- tarmithius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Ahh so true, I would rather go to Harajuku, or maybe the back streets of Shibuya.
- Decon89, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Too bad with the raindrops. Could have been a much better picture without those :/
- lozadaj, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I have to agree. Too many people us HDR when they should just use a long shutter speed. Most of the time HDR lots far from real.
- jesterspaz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Looks like a scene from Ghost in the Shell, awesome...
- ChocoMidget, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Alright this is my first post on Digg but I had to speak up and comment on this image. I am a professional photographer, I photograph cars and architecture. I have to say a few things. First everyone above you are right this is an 8bit image and can't be displayed on a monitor yatta yatta, there is one that can do it, its made by Brightside but it costs like 10K and will burn your eyes cause its soo damn bright. I believe its 16bit.
Next I swear will you people take your hand away from the sharpening tool, please!!!!!!!!!
I know you use it for dramatic effect and you think its cool, but images look so much better when they have been sharpened to complete limits of the file. You want that look run it through high pass on soft light please please please!!!!!
Next never use CS2 for HDRI, its crap, everyone knows it, I don't know a single professional that does use it. I use photomatix which is quite good.
Next HDRs are not supposed to look anything like this. A good HDR image is one where you cant tell it was ever done. An HDR is all about recreating how our eyes view the environment in which we live. The human eye sees approx. 20 stops of light. Negative film around 5. Transparency around 6. A print only contains 4 to 4 1/2 stops of info. Digital is now moving into being able to capture 12 stops and even 18 stops in one go. So the whole goal is to reach the 20 stops of how our eyes see to make things like looking into the sun but still being able to see into the shadows possible.
Again back off on the sharpening, if you think your photos are that blurry, remove the little anti-mosaic filter they put in front of the sensor and you'll see how sharp digital really is.
If you ever attempt anything like this, have patience, get a cable release and do a long exposure at 50 iso, it will turn out 10x better. - slothlovechunk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3THEY AREN'T HDR IMAGES!!!
HDR images have a bigger dynamic range than 8-bits per channel. - devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Agreed - flattened by HDR, bad color, ***** lens with CA and major vignetting.... this sucks pretty bad.
- invader, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Why is everyone digging unfinite down? he is right. A HDR image is a higher Dynamic Range Image. It has a higher(!) dynamic range. This image has the same dynamic range as every other one on the net, 8 bits per channel.
This image that we are looking at is a HDR image that has been approximated to normal dynamic range using a technique called tone mapping."
I think you need to look closer at what you typed, because you answered the question for yourself. "The image that we are looking at is a high dynamic range image [...]"
To really drive the point home, let's use a metaphor. Say someone shows you a picture of a giraffe. They say, "Hey, look at this giraffe." Then you respond, "That's not a giraffe! That's a photo of a giraffe!"
I'm sorry, but I don't really like snobby HDR elitists like 'unfinite'. I could take a 16-bit, single exposure RAW image and tone map it to 8-bit and it would still *technically* be a high dynamic range image. But there are plenty of a-holes out there who claim that only 5+ exposure images are 'truly HDRs'. I've talked to quite a few people who are just learning how to make HDRs, and they sound really discouraged when they tell me about some of the things HDR elitists say.
Sorry for the rant. - kdehead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2man - this is just so awesomely blade runner.
all its missing are some flying cars. - Daz_Genetic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Though this image, and the one Jake2 showed as an example, is a product of a High Dynamic Range image, the correct term for this type of processing is "tone mapping" or "exposure blending". Tone mapping uses algorithms to create the final image, while exposure blending is just a case of manually blending and overlaying multiple exposures. Both methods are used to increase the viewable dynamic range in a Low Dynamic Range image.
- M1THR4ND1R, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Awesome pic IMO.. That's about the image i have in my head when I think Tokyo at night.
- diggapleeeze, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Would hate to pay that electric bill.
- nekitip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2this is sooo "neuromancer".
- aweblogs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Looks good, i wonder how New York will look like in HDR.
More HDR's :
http://flickrville.com/category/hdr/ - jcaino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2that's the way most HDR images look
*shrug*
pretty cool image, shame for the rain - sporkmonger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's an HDR image. Basically several exposures combined together. But other than the combining operation, there probably wasn't a whole lot of Photoshopping involved. This is just what HDR looks like.
Edit: Aww, they beat me to it. - EvolvedAnt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I get lost in NYC where all the blocks are a series of rectangles, using a simple street/avenue numbering system, how in the world would I find my way around Tokyo in THAT mess? o_O;
- MrViklund, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't trust anything with word "Amazing" in the title...
- buildmorerobots, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's TRON outside the box.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Very nice composition. The white balance is off by a mile, though. Open the full-size one up in Photoshop and start tweaking the curves and you can really get something, though. Lose that yellow fog hanging over everything and give the thing some range between light and dark (you know, High Dynamic Range...heh...) and it looks pretty cool despite the flare and dust.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree. I don't like HDR images for this reason. They look a little too fake. I'll take a hardware solution like the Fuji S3/S5
- FlyboyP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1First thing that popped into my head too. All it needs is flying police cars.
- ChocoMidget, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually technical details are very much the point. This image while conceptually is pretty good loses so much ground due to poor execution. Don't get me wrong I think the soul is there, the blood and guts of the image, but not the refined finish look that this image could obtain. The photographer really needs to go back with a tripod on a day without rain, level his camera and do multiple versions of this image.
It is the case that sometimes snapshots are great images, but this one could benefit from more patience and discpline. - plotinuus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Why is everyone digging unfinite down? he is right. A HDR image is a higher Dynamic Range Image. It has a higher(!) dynamic range. This image has the same dynamic range as every other one on the net, 8 bits per channel.
This image that we are looking at is a HDR image that has been approximated to normal dynamic range using a technique called tone mapping. - CrushThemTorg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Argh! The artifacting is just brutal. Still kinda neat though.
- DevinOlsen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow, simply amazing... HDR image FTW =)
- leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You can really see problems with the lights for the cars in the full size version. I'm still glad I saw this picture though.
- coonzel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1oooh yeah...
/background - ldavid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I know....imagine the amount of electricity consumed in just this picture alone...scary.
- lopla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thanks for calling this an "Image", everytime I see one of these digital illustrations called a "Photograph" it makes my cry.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 102 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is