?

Log in

HDR - brad's life [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Brad Fitzpatrick

[ website | bradfitz.com ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

HDR [Nov. 19th, 2006|06:44 pm]
Brad Fitzpatrick
[Tags|, ]

Thank you guys for the HDR pointers and tips. I was too lazy to go anywhere, so I shot some raw images from my back porch on a tripod (w/ the delay on, to reduce tripod shake), and made my first exr file.... (it's at bradfitz.com/exr/backyard.exr if you want it, not linked because it's 18MB)

Here's a tone-mapped version of that exr file:

Backyard

That was all done with Photomatix Pro on my Mac. Next up I'll play with the various tools on Linux, using the same raw files and same openexr file.

Fun stuff.
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: moonwick
2006-11-20 02:55 am (UTC)
Man, you've got one hell of a backyard. Any pictures of it during daytime?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: way2tired
2006-11-20 03:22 am (UTC)
I have to agree. That looks pretty neat.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: edanya
2006-11-20 02:58 am (UTC)
i dig.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: monnie_doggett
2006-11-20 03:16 am (UTC)
I would love to look out my window and see something like that. Gorgeous shot.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: scsi
2006-11-20 03:20 am (UTC)
Woah, that actually came out pretty good.

After I get back from Portland, we gotta go around SF at night on a photo rampage.

I was seeing if there was a remote-shutter release that would also allow you to remotely change some of the settings (either the back thumb wheel or the finger wheel), but no such thing exists. :(

Did you go hard core and use the CFn function to flip the mirror up, wait 2 seconds, then shoot the picture to reduce shake from the mirror movement? :)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: brad
2006-11-20 03:28 am (UTC)
No, didn't use the CFn for that. That probably would've been better. 2 second delay wouldn't been enough for tripod shake too, then I could've saved 40-50 seconds total (4-5 shots) and had less cloud movement (they were moving fast)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: xaosenkosmos
2006-11-20 04:28 am (UTC)

You can totally leave this comment filtered =)

Now that you mention the cloud motion, i kind of like the effect. I hadn't really appreciated it before, but it creates a soft fuzziness that offsets the harder resolution of the foreground. You'd actually get excellent composition focusing on the pond, with the path leading down, etc, if the heater wasn't so bright and distracting.

(It's, uh, very Bob Ross, actually, but i mean that in the "approachable principles of composition" way, not the "a monkey with Parkinson's could paint that, you uncouth hack!" way.)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: revjim
2006-11-20 02:52 pm (UTC)
I find that mirror shake really only has a noticable effect from 2 to 1/30 or so seconds. A shorter time frame is quick enough to not see the blur and a longer time frame is long enough to incorporate the blur into the image in an unnoticable fashion.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: codetoad
2006-11-20 04:37 am (UTC)
Can't you use the camera in some sort of slave mode where you control it via a laptop? I can do that with the Nikon D70, so it might be something worth looking at.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: brad
2006-11-20 07:33 am (UTC)
I seem to recall looking into it recently and gphoto couldn't handle it. (it could download pics via PTP, but not remote control mode....)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: loganb
2006-11-20 05:00 am (UTC)
I find it interesting how HDR photos somehow look computer rendered.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: henry
2006-11-20 05:37 am (UTC)
well technically, they are.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: cjcollier
2006-11-20 05:19 am (UTC)
nice back yard, dude. You must be like... rich or something
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: xotiffany
2006-11-20 05:25 am (UTC)
Welcome to the jungle...
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: brad
2006-11-20 07:57 am (UTC)
You should've seen it a few days ago... it was entirely weeds.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: kristenpaige
2006-11-20 05:29 am (UTC)
I know this will sound weird but that looks nice and cozy.

Maybe I've been living in NYC for too long.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: midendian
2006-11-20 05:42 am (UTC)
You didn't follow the HDR tradition of totally overblowing the saturation and clipping all the dark off :)

How many images and what EV interval did you use?

What sucks about the CFn mirror lockup is that it's incompatible with continuous shutter mode, so you have to do the lockup delay by hand. Makes long composites pretty annoying.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: brad
2006-11-20 07:42 am (UTC)
I know what you mean about the saturation.... when I went anywhere near where I wanted to go, it started looking like shit. The colors were totally wrong. I guess you lose that? It went way too red whereas the originals looked more green and yellow.

The 4 images were f/2.8 at 5", 2"5, 1", 0"4. ISO 400.

The better image (with my paid copy, not a screenshot of the preview image) is at:
http://www.picpix.com/brad/pic/00b022t8/g580
(and that version goes hires)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: matthew
2006-11-20 05:52 am (UTC)
That looks totally surreal, I love it.
(Reply) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: kvance
2006-11-20 07:00 am (UTC)
Whoa.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: track_max
2006-11-20 08:08 am (UTC)
i must say i am amazed!

that looks like old silk chinese painting.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: boggyb
2006-11-20 09:03 am (UTC)
Nice! Looks more like a painting than a photo to me.

I'll have to try this myself one day.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: brentdax
2006-11-20 09:51 am (UTC)
I do believe that qualifies as "gorgeous". Makes me want to do that from my family's new house—we have a nice view...
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: mucho_suerte
2006-11-20 03:33 pm (UTC)
It looks very Lord Of The Rings to me. Nice.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: eli
2006-11-20 09:50 pm (UTC)

HDR in camera.

How long do you think until cameras have an HDR function build in? Cameras not being able to reproduce nearly as many stops as the human eye has been one of their biggest limitations since the beginning (if trying to produce an image true to the original that is).

It seems like you should be able to do this in camera (when in HDR mode, expose more for pixels under X brightness and less for those over X...then some gradient for the middle values).

It seems to me that this feature would sell consumer point and shoot cameras like crazy. I don't know why they haven't done it yet but there's probably a good reason. Perhaps it's tricker than I think.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: brad
2006-11-20 10:28 pm (UTC)

Re: HDR in camera.

I've been thinking the same thing. I think even a firmware upgrade should do it on most cameras. Just sample the CMOS censor multiple times during an exposure? Maybe I'm missing something. So instead of a 5 shots of varying shutter speed, you take one long one, but within that, there are 5 actual RAW files produced, at varying times. Then the camera makes the EXR file and lets you mess with it later. (or even do tone-mapping in-camera, like white balance is done now....)

I think one consumer camera has already gone down this road a little, but not all the way. I forget its name, though.... Fuji something I think.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2006-11-21 05:10 pm (UTC)

Re: HDR in camera.

Make it so that you can view the results on the viewfinder and you're in the money.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: eli
2006-11-21 05:11 pm (UTC)

Re: HDR in camera.

Make it so that you can see the results on the viewfinder and you're in the money.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: whitaker
2006-11-20 10:00 pm (UTC)
Looking at that shot, I feel like a zombie should jump out at any second with a rocket launcher or something.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: imtho
2006-11-21 12:04 am (UTC)

exactly what I was thinking.


(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: veroz
2006-11-21 12:15 am (UTC)
Impressive.

If you look in the top left corner and squint a little you can just barely make out something odd.

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: brad
2006-11-21 03:59 am (UTC)
HAHAHAHAHAH
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: scosol
2006-11-21 09:23 am (UTC)
kinda sux how HDR stuff brings out the noise in teh image eh?
(as seen in the black sky)

my first experiment with HDR was this image:

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: jenn_xx
2006-12-08 02:59 pm (UTC)
very nice photo!
(Reply) (Thread)