Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-12-2010, 08:02 AM   #1
Senior Member
PiotrKrochmal's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Poland -> Kraków
Posts: 186
K5 DNG versus HDR

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



11-12-2010, 10:37 AM   #2
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,544
Quite a difference. The second one is awesome.
11-12-2010, 10:57 AM   #3
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 337
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
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.

Last edited by PhilippeG; 11-12-2010 at 11:07 AM.
11-12-2010, 11:02 AM   #4
Veteran Member
VaughnA's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,363
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.

11-12-2010, 11:42 AM   #5
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,544
QuoteOriginally posted by PhilippeG Quote
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.
11-12-2010, 01:00 PM - 1 Like   #6
Senior Member
PiotrKrochmal's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Poland -> Kraków
Posts: 186
Original Poster
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
11-12-2010, 06:18 PM   #7
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bridgetown West Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 877
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.
11-12-2010, 06:31 PM   #8
Veteran Member
Smeggypants's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,536
QuoteOriginally posted by ozlizard Quote
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.

11-12-2010, 09:09 PM   #9
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,200
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
11-12-2010, 09:54 PM   #10
Forum Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 53
QuoteOriginally posted by PiotrKrochmal Quote
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.

Last edited by vancmann; 11-12-2010 at 10:00 PM.
11-12-2010, 10:14 PM   #11
Pentaxian
dosdan's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,697
QuoteOriginally posted by vancmann Quote
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.
11-12-2010, 11:41 PM   #12
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bridgetown West Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 877
QuoteOriginally posted by Smeggypants Quote
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!
11-13-2010, 12:36 AM   #13
Senior Member
PiotrKrochmal's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Poland -> Kraków
Posts: 186
Original Poster
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,
11-13-2010, 12:48 AM   #14
Forum Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 53
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.
11-13-2010, 12:51 AM   #15
Junior Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 35
...and an alternative about halfway between!

QuoteOriginally posted by jpzk Quote
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.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dng, dslr, hdr, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 iis, k5, pentax k-5, photo
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
1.4x TC + 55-300 versus 1.7x TC + 55-300 versus 55-300mm + cropping. Pentaxor Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 09-05-2009 02:41 PM
HDR Software - Dynamic-Photo HDR mithrandir Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 3 03-03-2009 08:46 PM
Batch converting camera dng to acr dng using acr Maynerd Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 6 01-17-2009 02:22 PM
RAW files? PEF versus DNG? rdrum76 Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 1 11-03-2008 11:59 AM
DNG in-camera vs DNG from Lightroom? rfortson Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 9 11-02-2008 11:06 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:13 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top