[PiotrKrochmal]

We all already know about the highly dynamic K5. I compared the combination of exposure and generated HDR image from a photo. Based on my experiences with the K200D and sometimes with the A700. I have to say that the programs currently are not quite ready to join such a dynamic RAW.
Here is an example of what can be obtained from a single photo Versus HDR 5 images: -4 -2 0 2 4 EV.
Technical Description:
DNG by LR 3.2
HDR by PMP 4.0,
as a single picture I took -2EV photo.
Samyang 8mm ISO 80, f/10

Link to flikrhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/piotrkrochmal/sets/72157625247880839/] Flickr

with DNG


HDR

[Parallax]

Quite a difference. The second one is awesome.

[PhilippeG]

Quite a difference. The second one is awesome.

Ah, HDR. Love it or hate it. I hate it. I thought, why compare a good shot with a ruined picture?
But preference aside, I can't see the point in comparing them. It's a bit like comparing it with a Lomo picture and say "look how the saturation is better on the Lomo pic". It's not "better", it's just a different style.

[VaughnA]

The thing that I notice is that the DR of the DNG approaches the extra dynamic range of the HDR. I'm betting with some local contrast PP adjustments you could get the single shot to almost look like the HDR. That some impressive dynamic range right there.

[Parallax]

Ah, HDR. Love it or hate it. I hate it. I thought, why compare a good shot with a ruined picture?
But preference aside, I can't see the point in comparing them. It's a bit like comparing it with a Lomo picture and say "look how the saturation is better on the Lomo pic". It's not "better", it's just a different style.

Generally, I don't care for HDR, either; but I find that particular picture quite striking.

[PiotrKrochmal]

Yes, I also don't like too compressed HDR picture.
I must admit that I'm waiting till monitors could show HDR image without the compression. What you see at second photo is compressed HDR - Today all compressed HDR was named HDR photos. Its like in music, signal have to be compressed to play it on speakers.
With real HDR photo you will see white and darkness in most areas.

But I what to show you by this topic, that today's sensors, could almost capture photos in better way .


And some interesting point of view. First HDR is ordinary meaning was: Paintings with fully blue sky and details in darkness.
cheers for all

[ozlizard]

Is that the in camera HDR? If it is that's pretty impressive. HDR to me allows you to recreate a scene as it looked at the time. The camera cannot capture the full dynamic range that the human eye sees. It also allows you to go that little bit further to create an artistic work.

[Smeggypants]

Is that the in camera HDR? If it is that's pretty impressive. HDR to me allows you to recreate a scene as it looked at the time. The camera cannot capture the full dynamic range that the human eye sees. It also allows you to go that little bit further to create an artistic work.

Really? HDR pics, and occasionally I do like them, have NEVER given a realistic view through my eyes.

[jpzk]

Not a I don't care about HDR rendering but this second image look "phony" to me, sorry .... just my personal taste.

Someone on this forum, a little while back, presented some HDR images which, as I recall, were much closer to "reality".
I still prefer the first image.

My ten-cents.

JP

[vancmann]

Yes, I also don't like too compressed HDR picture.
I must admit that I'm waiting till monitors could show HDR image without the compression. What you see at second photo is compressed HDR - Today all compressed HDR was named HDR photos. Its like in music, signal have to be compressed to play it on speakers.
With real HDR photo you will see white and darkness in most areas.

But I what to show you by this topic, that today's sensors, could almost capture photos in better way .


And some interesting point of view. First HDR is ordinary meaning was: Paintings with fully blue sky and details in darkness.
cheers for all

Interesting but I'm afraid I'm not sure I understand. Is the resolution compressed or the DR or the color dept?
About the speakers analogy, uncompressed audio signals, sounds better through them. The more they are compressed, the worse they sound. They must be converted to analog however to be heard through the speakers.

BTW, both pictures look really good. Although HDR's in general looks surreal, I think that it is mostly because we are not used to seeing that range of colors and range on a monitor.

[dosdan]

About the speakers analogy, uncompressed audio signals, sounds better through them. The more they are compressed, the worse they sound. They must be converted to analog however to be heard through the speakers.

It's hard to listen to wide-range symphonic music in your lounge room without compressing the the original DR somewhat. (I used to record live classical music a lot between 1980-1984.) It's either too loud be listened to in a domestic situation without either upsetting your neighbours or members of the household, or fiddling with the volume control to bring the quiet bits above the suburban noise level.

HDR has two parts:
1. Capturing a scene, using multiple exposures, so as to exceed the DR of a single shot.
2. Using Tone-mapping to allow an extended DR image to be shown on a display or printer.

The first part seems relatively easy. It's the 2nd step that seems to cause the problems. The 2nd part, in audio, is much easier than in photography.

Dan.

[ozlizard]

ly? HDR pics, and occasionally I do like them, have NEVER given a realistic view through my eyes.

I think it depends on the level of HDR applied. Used judicisouly it can increase the DR to reveal parts of the image that you eye could perceive at the time but the camera could not capture. A good example is looking into water, when you look at the image off the camera you can't see into it, although you could when you were there. Applying the correct level of HDR reveals what your eye originally could see. It's the same when we look around at the landscape we are standing in, ouy eyes constantly adjust so we can see into the shadows etc. The camera cannot do that so once again applying mild HDR can reavel those details. I think it is a fantastc tool. Having said all that I turn it up quite a lot because I want to create not just capture, but each to their own!

[PiotrKrochmal]

Hello,
I'll try to answer your questions nad topics:
1. ozlizard:
HDR made in Photomatrix Pro 4
HDR of the body is for me the equivalent of a weak MP3 music.
A completely separate issue is how to compress HDR to look natural. If you're accustomed to the typical tonal range does not automatically look good.

2. Vancman:
Both as colors and tonal range. HDR can theoretically increase the resolution of the images but it requires absolutely no blur when shooting.
Compression of music you are talking about a compression of finished work.
In the case of mastering of music and its recording, whether in the studio or in concert compressors are one of the basic tools. Even if the sound recording is analog. exactly as wrote dosdan.

3. HDR which I showed here, I tried to call in order to get the maximum detail from the shadows. It turns out that 14bit DNG from K-5 can be called HDR file, because only after the compression to "sliders" in graphics programs, we see all the information.
It's very good news and I wanted to write it,

[vancmann]

Thanks for the explanation guys. The word compression threw me off because I have been compressing a lot of CD's into MP3's recently. I understand the analogy now, it is the compression of amplitude, the lowest db to the highest db.

[Staffan]

Not a I don't care about HDR rendering but this second image look "phony" to me, sorry .... just my personal taste.

Someone on this forum, a little while back, presented some HDR images which, as I recall, were much closer to "reality".
I still prefer the first image.

My ten-cents.

JP

To a large extent I agree with JP. And you can apply the Nik Software Viveza plug-in for PS and other photo editors, which really has changed photography for me. With that plug-in you can easily (avoiding a lot of layer work in PS) keep the better lower part of the first picture but change the sky of that picture to be more similar to the one of the second photo. This is an alternative about halfway between the two pictures and would be the ideal thing as I see it.