Many cameras have a feature called bracketing that will help. Bracketing a shot means taking photos (usually three) at different exposures one right after the other. You setup an EV bracket and the camera will take one shot at normal exposure and then one lower and one higher. At minimum you should get a camera that can do +/- 1.0EV when bracketing. Some only do +/- 0.3EV. The higher the better and if you can find one that does +/- 2.0EV or higher it'll be perfect for HDR.Look for prosumer cameras like the Sony H5 or Canon S3, which are quite a bit cheaper than DSLRs, but more expensive than the cheap digitals. Some cheaper cameras might also have that feature.
Could anyone clarify the difference (if there is any) between HDR in photography and HDRI in 3d video rendering? From what i can gather, there is a small but significant difference. Any help?
this is not real HDRI, these are just exposures blending together. If you guys want to see some real HDRI visit:<a class="user" href="http://www.spectralogue.com/HDRI/">http://www.spectralogue.com/HDRI/</a>a HDRI that is used for rendering is usually a very large 360 degree panorama that is use to capture the entire range of light in a scene. This bulk of lighting information is then used to light a 3d object (a car in the case of that website) as realistically as possible. This new fad of blending exposures is pretty sweet if done right, but a lot of these images just end of looking very strange of someone does not know how to do it in a artistic and non distracting manner.
JoreGTHDR is really useful when the actual scene grossly exceeds the dynamic range of the medium you capture it with (in most cases a CCD or CMOS sensor). If the subject itself does not have a lot of contrast in it and fits within the DR of the 0EV compensation image, compositing multiple frames in HDR is not going to make much of a impact. I personally feel HDR is overused and often looks gimmicky, that said I have seen a handful of images where HDR really captured a mood that wouldn't have been possible otherwise. IMO There is a time and a place for HDR just like transitions in videos, we've all seen bad wedding videos where every scene is cut to another with some spinning/sliding/fading/twirling transition that's only purpose seems to be to create nausea for the viewer. To each his own.
About half way down this article is a picture that looks like a little planet with a large building standing on top of it and trees around the bottom. Does anyone know what this style of photo manipulation is called? If it has its own name. I vaguely remember there being an article on digg awhile back on how to make them but not knowing what it's called makes it hard to search for. Or it could all be some strange dream. We'll see. Thanks.
I'm confused. I've taken some classes, done some researching, seen many examples, but I haven't tried my hand at making a HDR image.But just how in the world are VISUAL ARTIFACTS good???? A lot of the images there are absolutely PLAGUED by haloing, including that one. The haloing effect isn't supposed to be cool. That's like showing an extreme closeup of a JPG and marveling at the pixelation.
I've played with the program Photomatrix from HDRsoft, but I was disapointed in its quality. Image alignment often failed, weird solarized burned-out spots when I tried tone mapping images. You definitely need to find professionally written software if you want to do hand-held exposure bracketing and then do HDR/Tone-Mapping. Image alignment needs to be done right, with real projective-space mapping.I agree with nicesmooth too, cameras have much more linear responce to light than the eye, and HDR with tone mapping lets you work around that limitation.
shakinOct 17, 2006
Many cameras have a feature called bracketing that will help. Bracketing a shot means taking photos (usually three) at different exposures one right after the other. You setup an EV bracket and the camera will take one shot at normal exposure and then one lower and one higher. At minimum you should get a camera that can do +/- 1.0EV when bracketing. Some only do +/- 0.3EV. The higher the better and if you can find one that does +/- 2.0EV or higher it'll be perfect for HDR.Look for prosumer cameras like the Sony H5 or Canon S3, which are quite a bit cheaper than DSLRs, but more expensive than the cheap digitals. Some cheaper cameras might also have that feature.
tardmongersterOct 17, 2006
I wanna be a pro too! Is there a cheap camera that makes me look good? I only have $38 dollars.
qvitexOct 17, 2006
Could anyone clarify the difference (if there is any) between HDR in photography and HDRI in 3d video rendering? From what i can gather, there is a small but significant difference. Any help?
b3and1pOct 17, 2006
this is not real HDRI, these are just exposures blending together. If you guys want to see some real HDRI visit:<a class="user" href="http://www.spectralogue.com/HDRI/">http://www.spectralogue.com/HDRI/</a>a HDRI that is used for rendering is usually a very large 360 degree panorama that is use to capture the entire range of light in a scene. This bulk of lighting information is then used to light a 3d object (a car in the case of that website) as realistically as possible. This new fad of blending exposures is pretty sweet if done right, but a lot of these images just end of looking very strange of someone does not know how to do it in a artistic and non distracting manner.
kernelhappyOct 17, 2006
JoreGTHDR is really useful when the actual scene grossly exceeds the dynamic range of the medium you capture it with (in most cases a CCD or CMOS sensor). If the subject itself does not have a lot of contrast in it and fits within the DR of the 0EV compensation image, compositing multiple frames in HDR is not going to make much of a impact. I personally feel HDR is overused and often looks gimmicky, that said I have seen a handful of images where HDR really captured a mood that wouldn't have been possible otherwise. IMO There is a time and a place for HDR just like transitions in videos, we've all seen bad wedding videos where every scene is cut to another with some spinning/sliding/fading/twirling transition that's only purpose seems to be to create nausea for the viewer. To each his own.
mrnolanOct 17, 2006
About half way down this article is a picture that looks like a little planet with a large building standing on top of it and trees around the bottom. Does anyone know what this style of photo manipulation is called? If it has its own name. I vaguely remember there being an article on digg awhile back on how to make them but not knowing what it's called makes it hard to search for. Or it could all be some strange dream. We'll see. Thanks.
ecomniOct 17, 2006
I'm confused. I've taken some classes, done some researching, seen many examples, but I haven't tried my hand at making a HDR image.But just how in the world are VISUAL ARTIFACTS good???? A lot of the images there are absolutely PLAGUED by haloing, including that one. The haloing effect isn't supposed to be cool. That's like showing an extreme closeup of a JPG and marveling at the pixelation.
coreburnOct 17, 2006
The Olympus SP500 UZ isn't a DSLR and will do bracketing, will shoot in raw format, and sells for around $270.
donpmitchellMar 1, 2007
I've played with the program Photomatrix from HDRsoft, but I was disapointed in its quality. Image alignment often failed, weird solarized burned-out spots when I tried tone mapping images. You definitely need to find professionally written software if you want to do hand-held exposure bracketing and then do HDR/Tone-Mapping. Image alignment needs to be done right, with real projective-space mapping.I agree with nicesmooth too, cameras have much more linear responce to light than the eye, and HDR with tone mapping lets you work around that limitation.