Jump to content

Talk:Multi-exposure HDR capture/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Dynamic Range / Contrast Ratio of various sources

I'm not sure of the accuracy of the table "Dynamic Ranges of Common Devices." I've seen disagreeing numbers for several items (see e.g. http://www.richardreddy.com/HTML/topics.html), and I can't find any authoritative support for the numbers given. Does anyone have any thoughts about this? I can dig deeper for some more substantiated numbers, but I don't want to bother if anyone has the expertise handy. KLuwak 22:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KLuwak (talk • contribs)

The statements in the table do not match what I was taught in college. Though I would have to go break out my textbooks to find the exact numbers, I think one book indicated typical performance for electronic sources as being 4 to 5 stops total range while film was usually 7 to 9 stops. This was dealing with motion picture film and video, but my understanding is the technology is largely the same in still photography. The sources from the table do not appear to be coming from a scholarly or technical source but an individual doing his own research and posting on his own website.--jqubed (Talk | Contributions) 21:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree there's something wrong here. Contrast ratio for LCDs is about right if you believe manufacturer figures. Film and digital are the wrong way around - film has a better range. "Range" for digital is meaningless unless we state RAW versus processing into a format and colour space - and that distinction especially important in this article surely. Would Hedgecoe's books be considered a good citation - if so I'll go and look this stuff up.Infojunkie23 (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The [4] reference in the Dynamic Range of Common Devices table is no longer valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.185.206 (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if anybody changed it, but as of now it works. —Darxus (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a separate software list article - so why is there a list here? Is there some criterion for inclusion into the shorter list here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infojunkie23 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Added more information on HDR video and the limitation of tonemapping techniques imposed by color film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.17 (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the software section tends to accumulate spammy cruft. Ick. Also, that "software list article" is not what the description implied, it's an HDR subsection of an article on image stitching / panorama programs.

  • CinePaint - open source HDR image editing software, forked from GIMP in 1998[1]

- good

- rfd, looks like spam (I'm requesting deletion of this document from wikipedia)

- rfd, looks like spam

- Not actually software. Might be useful to link from elsewhere on this page, but deleted from this list.

  • Hugin - HDR merging/panorama stitching (Linux, MacOSX, Unix, Windows; GPL-2+)

- good

- rfd, looks like spam

- rfd, looks like spam, flagged no references a year ago

- good

- rfd, looks like spam

  • HDRpad - free software (Win32/64)

- not HDR just tone-mapping, no references, unlikely to pass notability —Darxus (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Photomatix already went through the deletion request process: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photomatix Pro —Darxus (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamic Photo HDR
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HDR PhotoStudio
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EasyHDR Pro
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SilverFast
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HDRpad
—Darxus (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Better link to all 5: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 19#HDRpad —Darxus (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Tomlee2010 reverted my removal of this software without explanation. Ckatz restored it. Davidacc reverted it without explanation again. I just restored it again, mentioning this discussion as I did with my initial change. 216.254.152.106 also added a link to a non-existant article. I believe all of this software, even if it doesn't deserve to have its articles deleted from wikipedia, does not belong in this HDRI article because it is only related to tone-mapping, and only uses HDR images as temporary files if at all, only outputting the tone-mapped LDR images. —Darxus (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

In august Tomlee2010 added an external link to hdrpad.com from Image fusion which was reverted "rm promotional link": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_fusion&diff=prev&oldid=379362070 —Darxus (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Darxus has removed from this list several times links to very wellknown HDR or HDR based software, such as Photomatix, easyHDR and serveral others. Darxus, do you want to hide the truth that those apps are good HDR software ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidacc (talk • contribs) 12:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Davidacc, I moved your comment to the bottom of this section where it belongs, and so people will find it. My changes have been in compliance with wikipedia policy, mostly discussing them here. Yours have not. I believe easyHDR and Photomatix, which you just re-added to the article inappropriately without discussion, are primarily tone-mapping software and do not belong in this article. Feel free to put them in tone mapping. If you have evidence to the contrary, provide it before making your changes. I'm removing them again. —Darxus (talk) 20:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Davidacc's entire contribution history has been these two inappropriate reverts of removals of these links. —Darxus (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Darxus, it is ironic that you removed Photomatix from the HDR software list. I was wondering if you have ever used Photomatix. You should make sure you have knowledge about the software that you want to remove. Your attempt of hidding the truth is destroying the value of Wikipedia as a source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidacc (talk • contribs) 08:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Darxus, why don't you remove ALL the software links? Or maybe you endorse software for Linux? Would be better if you found more time to get into the topic you're cleaning, or you know, better leave it to someone who is interested in it. To make it clear. Photomatix, easyHDR PRO and a couple other software products DO produce HDR radiance maps. If you think that the fact, that they also do the tone mapping, makes them inappropriate here, then why do you leave hugin? It's primary goal is stitching panoramas, not merging to HDR radiance map - you know the difference? It's huge, you know. The title is "High dynamic range imaging" - software titles you removed from the list were 1000x more appropriate here than any panorama stiching app. And, notability of Photomatix, easyHDR, Dynamic HDR... come on. Did you even bothered to do the research? I think I know the answer... you don't use the software, so you think nobody uses this - it's bull**t. Go play with your own toys. Bartek.okonek (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Bartek.okonek, I see you have deleted the (whole) software section with the description "panorama software links removed - irrelevant to HDR imaging topic". While the description is completely inappropriate to your edit, and I think the deletion of the section was premature, I do think it might be the best choice due to the difficulty of keeping promotional articles out of that section. —Darxus (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Darxus, ok the description should be: "removed irrelevant links". I agree, better to remove the whole "software" section so there are no promotional links at all. It was unfair to allow some software to be promoted here while not putting links to other software products that are on the "HDR market". Actually I think that the note about Photoshop CS2 makes no sense either. Photoshop was not the first and, at least CS2, was rather poor at HDR generation and tone mapping.--Bartek.okonek (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Added more examples of camera's with build-in HDR functionality

So anyone can make HDR pictures with camera's that allow for changing EV settings. Auto exposure bracketing makes it a lot easier. But nowadays more and more camera's seem to have build-in also the combining of the pictures to have an immediate result. The Canon G12 and S95 were already given as an example. But there are more. I added them. It might be better for this article to just mention the fact that this is a feature that can be seen in an increasing amount of camera's. And then to start some list elsewhere. (Because it really adds to how usefull this article is) Yvolution (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Do these cameras actually output an image with a high dynamic range, with increased depth per color? Or are they just outputting the low dynamic range result of running a high dynamic range image through local tone mapping? —Darxus (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Methods

The link to "High Dynamic Range rendering" article is definitely wrong here. It's not a method of HDR imaging... it's something opposite I'd say. Actually speaking of "methods" themselves makes no sense even. There is only one scientific way to merge to HDR... those "methods" could be/are variants of it. Those variants can have special features like ghost removal, noise reduction etc. Wide Dynamic Range... OMG... what's this? It's like "almost HDR" or what? Irrelevant, notability is very questionable. Bartek.okonek (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The only way I can make sense of this statement is if you are using a definition of "imaging" that basically equates to "photography". Which is not appropriate for this article. Particularly where you say "There is only one scientific way to merge to HDR...". "Merging" is not even inherent in HDR. I would define "imaging" as "creation or manipulation of images". It's possible the title of this article could use something more appropriate than "imaging". But I doubt it. —Darxus (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If this article is about both photography and rendering, then what to do with this one: High dynamic range rendering? And now there's a question... what is "HDR rendering" at all? I can tell you - it's another idea of guys who're responsible for marketing... they have invented also LCD screens with dynamic range of 70000:1 (I am sitting in front of such screen right now).

Consider this... what's the problem to render an artificial scene with dynamic range limited only by data storage format... float, or double? I can even "draw/render" an artificial 3x3 pixel image of a distant star, here it goes:

[0, 0, 0; 0, 1e12, 0; 0, 0, 0]

What's the dynamic range of this "image"? There is no noise (apart from quantization noise) and the data type is array of 64-bit double.

In case of photography it seems to me that HDR is reserved for merging several differently exposed photos together to form a radiance map of the photographed scene, that has more dynamic range than a single photo. But... If I had a CMOS/CCD sensor with linear sensitivity and SNR at 90dB could I call the photos taken with it a HDR? Or maybe I can call an image a HDR if it has dynamic range of 70dB, but it is a merge of several 55dB shots?--Bartek.okonek (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

When a wikipedia article gets too big, one way of managing it is to break one of its larger sections off into a separate article. That is the relationship between HDRI and High dynamic range rendering. They are separate only because they are more manageable that way than as a single article.
What LCD do you have with 70000:1 contrast? The only display I heard of (which certainly doesn't mean there aren't others) with a contrast ratio significantly above 700:1 was the BrightSide DR37-P, at 200,000:1 (17.6 stops). Dolby purchased BrightSide in 2007, and as far as I can tell the technology was never put into production. It should probably be mentioned in this article.
HDR rendering predates LCD monitors probably by over a decade, and started out free. "The use of high dynamic range imaging (HDRI) in computer graphics was introduced by Greg Ward in 1985 with his open source Radiance rendering and lighting simulation...." - the HDR rendering article. HDR rendering is using computers to synthetically create images with a high dynamic range.
While extending image rendering to higher bit depth is, as you point out, perhaps not terribly complicated conceptually, I believe it remains uncommon. The dynamic range of your "image" is undefined, because you have not defined a color profile for it. It could be 10:1 or 2^100:1. Most images use sRGB, which would make it... something LDR. That article could benefit from defining the maximum contrast somewhere. You could certainly create a 2 bit per pixel image and declare that its contrast ratio is 10,000,000:1, but I would not call that HDR because it lacks any kind of useful precision between brightness levels. I would say the minimum bits per color for HDR would be 16 (so 48 bits per RGB pixel), based largely on my belief that this is the minimum color depth of any image file format anybody actually uses for HDR.
HDR has nothing to do with the number of photographs you merge together, except that that is the only common photographic method currently available. If you had a camera with a sensor that produced a dynamic range equivalent to merging several LDR images, yes, that would be an HDR photo. The definition of HDR, as it relates to images, is only related to the dynamic range of an image - the contrast ratio or number of stops from lightest to darkest (and perhaps retaining useful precision between brightness levels). —Darxus (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
A google search for 70000:1 LCD produces plenty of hits on monitors. Looks like mostly Samsung, some LG.... —Darxus (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
That 17.6 stops of the 200,000:1 BrightSide display is still only the dynamic range of about two merged photographs. Kind of shows how misleading using a linear scale for contrast is for something that behaves more logarithmically, and why stops are a log scale. —Darxus (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
How can you call a 2-bit image a HDR by arbitrarily declaring contrast ratio? If so, then any tone mapped HDR radiance map could be still called a HDR image, because you "know" what was the real dynamic range of the photographed scene. Dynamic range of the >photo< is limited by noise, including the quantization noise.
Color profile? Can't I have a b&w image? My "space" is [min,max]. --Bartek.okonek (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Demonstrating bit depth variance

The book High Dynamic Range Imaging, the first reference on this page, compares the difference between common 8 bit per color channel images (like all jpegs) to HDR images (often 16 bits per channel) within the limited dynamic range of a printed image by comparing a 4 bit per channel image to an 8 bit per channel image, on page 5. I would like to reproduce that in this article. I attempted something similar in the past with phenomenal controversy. My current plan is to use a color palette with the full range of red, green, and blue values, but only 16 (4 bits) colors per channel (evenly spaced) instead of 256 (8 bits). I believe this would faithfully reproduce the example in the reference. I think the first image in crepuscular rays would make a good example. Any opinions? —Darxus (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Scanning film

I tracked down where the unreferenced scanning film section was added: [1]. Ren Kusack made the addition. I left a request on his talk page for references. —Darxus (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

H-D-R imaging?

I cannot see why the article title was changed to hyphenate HDR, i.e. from “High dynamic range imaging” to “High-dynamic-range imaging”. This is not how HDR imaging is commonly written, see for example Reinhard et al.’s HDR book. Tony1 just said this was a “MoS requirement”, but I could not find anything about this in WP:TITLE. I would like to see the old (and correct) title restored. Any other opinions? — Richie 13:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

WP's Manual of Style has sections on the use of professional-standard typography, including hyphens and dashes. Obviously, an article title should not be different from the article text in this respect. Omitting hyphens might be the practice of some specialists (as in many scientific/technical fields), but here we write for a readership with a wide range of expertise—critically, for the general reader too. Without the hyphens, I myself was asking how to parse this four-word nominal group: is there such a thing as high imaging? Range imaging? In fact, it's imaging over a high dynamic range, yes? Please account for both the needs of non-experts and the directions of WP's MoS. Tony (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Although the change was at first jarring to me, too, I think Tony's rationale is correct. In my experience it is common for engineers—and hence engineering publications—to ignore style conventions, especially when it comes to hyphenation of multi-word adjectives and capitalization. For example, engineers often presume anything that has been formed into an initialism should naturally be capitalized when the initialism is expanded, e.g., "High Dynamic Range" everywhere. To conclude, I think Tony's view is correct that "high dynamic range" should be unhyphenated when it serves as a noun and hyphenated when it serves as an adjective. Robert K S (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying the rationale, and I do agree on typographic grounds. I was just concerned by the deviation from the way that practitioners use the term: without hyphens, or just as an initialism, as pointed out by Robert. — Richie 16:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
There's only one problem with this explanation: WP:HYPHEN doesn't require hyphenation, it permits it. This is sound; hyphenation (as MOS also says) is slowly falling out of use in such contexts, where genuine ambiguity does not exist. (Tony is, as I would expect, correct on what the syntactic grouping is; but it doesn't need hyphens to support it.) 05:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmanderson (talk • contribs)

Precision vs. Dynamic Range

The editing section confuses precision with dynamic range as if they were the same concept and is incorrect. One can have a high precision image (16 or 32 bit) shot from a low dynamic range camera. Also one can have an 8-bit high dynamic range image. The number of stops recorded in an image is separate from how precisely the brightness levels are represented. Precision and dynamic range are related in practice though, as is even stated elsewhere in the article, in that higher precision is more important in HDR images than SDR in that it allows sufficient gradations to be stored for each stop to avoid banding artifacts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.51.73 (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

nearly useless

I turned to this article for information abut HDR techniques and algorithms. It has next to nothing on such things. I also feel some of the material is misleading or even incorrect. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The big picture / 30,000' view is that it exaggerates differences. That is totally missing from the article. North8000 (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, to refine my comment, the article actually accurately covers the imaging process itself. Such represents the capture and storage of more information than is available from "standard" methods. Where the article goes wrong is that it incorporates creation of printed images in a way that exaggerates such differences as being a part of the process. North8000 (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Digital only?

Under the header "Photography", the article reads "[..] images must necessarily be digitized for processing." But! this very article mentions an early creator of analogue HDR, and I am sure there are many more. I think this only contributes to the common misconception of high dynamic range photography being all about the over-saturated colors. Polymeris (talk)

And the awful over-saturated example photograph of the German river scene does nothing to dispel that perception. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, back in the day when photography required mastering recalcitrant materials and chemical processes, we would sometimes take multiple photos of the same scene and mask and combine them to synthesize an expanded dynamic range image. The idea of this now being blessed with it's own catchy acronym and pseudo-scientific sounding name is so post-modern, don't-cha think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on the images used to illustrate the subject

The quantity of photos in this article is far too great. Photos are supposed to provide concise illustration of the subject, not every possible permutation. I am also concerned about the technical quality of many of the photos, many of which are very amateurish examples of HDR. Please forgive me if I offend the creators of any of these photos. I propose the following:

  • The nav box should be removed as it does not contain the subject article. This should not be controversial and is backed by policy, so I will make that edit.
  • Eliminate the next four photos     in the right column, but consider the top-most photo montage as a candidate for the examples section. The second photo montage has a low gamma and poor contrast; the third and fourth photos have clipped highlights and shadows, and is over-saturated. There are not good examples of HDR imaging. We should find a good representative candidate photo for the article main photo (top right).
  • Completely eliminate the gallery per WP:NOTGALLERY.
  • Keep the Gustave Le Gray photo.
  • Keep the first example set of photos and eliminate the rest.
  • The time lapse video may merit discussion as well.

I would like feedback on this proposal and, depending on that, we can either make the changes or move to a formal RfC. - MrX 14:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Under the assumption of silent consensus, I have made some of the changes that I mentioned yesterday. I removed the gallery based on commonly accepted practices and since there is a link to a multitude of HDR images on Commons. I have also removed the second example and formatted the first. - MrX 14:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Belatedly, I support your proposals. I'd probably go one step further and remove the photograph of Leukbach (3rd thumbnail) as, IMHO, it looks like one of those HDR-style images that are popular these days. People already confuse that sort of garish tonemapping (often of LDR scenes) for HDR. nagualdesign (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your support Nagualdesign. - MrX 16:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I have removed the other two superfluous images. I am going to see if I can find a more representative image on Commons for the lede, but the current one, while not exceptional, is at least technically closer to a representative tone mapped image resulting from an HDR process. I think it would be ideal to find a more recognizable subject, without the heavy orange tonal artifacts, and with a broader range of colors in general. - MrX 21:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Agree. Images are immensely important and useful tool here, but those were superfluous. North8000 (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm putting together a straw poll of possible lede images, in my sandbox, which I will post here when I'm done. Of course, everyone is free to nominate their own choices as well. - MrX 23:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


HDR image processed in single file

HDR image processed in single file by using Dynamic Photo HDR software

User:Alfie66, how could you see this image as bad example? You should discuss with me before you claim as "bad" and revert my edit. --Anton·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 04:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Without commenting on the quality of the image, it has no encyclopedic value beyond what is already included in the article. It also has clipped shadows and highlights, making it no different than a standard exposure image. Technically, it is not an HDR tone mapped image, it is simply a tone mapped image.- MrX 12:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Did not you see other images, which are used in this article, has clipped shadows and highlights? The image is placed as a sample of single HDR processed image rather than different EV value images. Is there any standard for HDRI? --Anton·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 13:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
AntanO, IMHO your argument is in direct conflict with the meaning of High-dynamic-range imaging. Starting with the word "imaging" (not merely image processing). North8000 (talk) 13:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Anton, can you be specific about what other images you think are a problem, and why? The idea behind HDRI is to reproduce a broader reproduction of luminosity than afforded by the medium by combining images. The sample that you used seems to simply add some local contrast to emulate the effect. I don't see how that example advances the understanding of the subject.- MrX 14:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Anton, a HDR image (not the tonemapped output) must, by definition, have High Dynamic Range. Which is to say, it must have a greater dynamic range than can ordinarily be captured with current technology. The resultant HDR image cannot even be viewed or printed using current technology (save, perhaps, for some OLED screens with ultra-high contrast ratios). For these reasons, HDR imaging is currently the process of taking several diffent exposures of the same scene, combining them with special software, then tonemapping them to produce a normal dynamic range image that retains detail in the highlights and shadows. Sometimes this produces halos and other artifacts, which have become synonymous with HDR. Processing a normal image to intentionally produce HDR-like artifacts, high saturation and/or high contrast is not the same thing at all. Although the crepuscular rays in this image are pretty, it doesn't belong in an HDR article. nagualdesign (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Nagualdesign, there are serious flaws in your arguments.
The idea of HDR imaging is that the resultant image is viewable on the output medium, within its output DR. Standard display DR is about 8 stops, even less with prints, yet the resultant images make the appearance of high DR by using HDR tonemapping techniques that essentially compress DR but preserve the visual impression. If one happens to have a high-DR display, that's even better, because then heavy DR compression is not needed, but one can't expect all internet users to have them, and conventional prints will never allow wide DR.
I don't see combining multiple images in "HDR imaging" definition! It only says high dynamic range imaging! Multiple exposures were necessarily required some time ago, when the DR of the digital imaging sensors was barely wide enough for decent capture of the DR needed for standard displays. Still holds for cameraphones ;) But single-exposure HDR technique got wings with sensors like the one in Nikon D90, with about 12 stops by DxOMark, that is almost 10 useful stops, and is a bit more than the 8 stops viewable standard. It required multiple raw conversions at different software exposure compensation levels initially, because of the DR limitation of the raw conversion software (finite precision computation, restricted rendering options), but recently many raw converters can handle wide DR in a single conversion. A bit of this is even already available in in-camera DR "extensions", such as Nikon ADL, Sony DRO etc (not to be confused with multiple-exposure HDR modes, which tends to produce dull-looking results, due to restricted in-camera HDR processing), see for example
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/17
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d750/15
where you can notice that the input DR captured gets to about 12 stops. Still, manual processing from raw still produces better results than these automatic options, because about two stops appear to get lost.
Current best sensors offer two more stops, about 14 stops by DxOMark, and that's pretty much high dynamic range already. Multiple exposures can get you a bit cleaner shadows, but can't help you record unlimited DR, because internal reflections inside the lens and camera bright up the darkest parts of the image. Another issue is that the wider the scene DR, the more difficult is tonemapping to produce an image that still looks kinda natural (it can never be the same, but it can appear much closer to what we see than a default high contrast 8-stop camera rendering with blown highlights and sunken shadows). So it is very much valuable to have a HDR solution that can process moderately higher dynamic range with little fuss.
A raw file coming from a wide-DR sensor and containing an image of a wide-DR scene can be most certainly classified as a form of a HDR image, just because it contains a high dynamic range image!
Also, the number of bits used for storing HDR images is not directly relevant. In-camera multi-exposure HDR is generally acknowledged as a HDR technique, although it uses simple exposure fusion techniques without involving a high-bitdepth HDR master image (see Enfuse). Also (but not related directly), JPG files may hold more than 8 stops of DR (which may be difficult to display properly on standard monitors) despite having a bitdepth of 8 bits, due to the nonlinear storage technique.
For the record, I am not discussing the gothic form of false HDR tonemapping :) Not that I would want to deny anyone artistic value of such images, and the label I've used is a joke because I don't know a better non-joke term, but there are two characteristic differences. Firstly, they are (mostly) made from low-DR input. Secondly, the tonemapping is not conducted with a realistic intent (although a certain degree of artefacts such as halos is often present also in images rendered with a realistic intent - the higher the scene DR, the more difficult to avoid them, and keep some life in the image).
Hi Anton, see WP:BRD. BTW, if you produced the image with Dynamic Photo HDR, why does its Exif state Adobe Photoshop CS3? Alfie↑↓© 01:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I know what does HDR or HDRI mean? I do not have conflict knowledge of HDR. But, the theory/definition of HDR changes as per many theories. Therefore, I was intended add a picture for “single image processed HDR”, and I was planned to elaborate in the article by mentioning single image processed HDR could be done by special software like Dynamic Photo HDR and in-built features of photo editing software like Photoshop. If anyone feels it should not be here and irrelevant to “encyclopedia”, it’s up to you. I don’t want to insist or beg anyone. --Anton·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 16:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect, "single image processed HDR" is meaningless. Raw files certainly have a greater dynamic range than, say, jpegs, and processing a digital negative 2 or 3 times to produce different exposures before combining them with software (HDR or otherwise) can help to retain highlight and shadow details, but a raw file isn't classed as HDR by any standards. To put it another way, a 32-bit HDR image has more than 260,000 times the number of possible tonal values than a 14-bit RAW image per subpixel. nagualdesign (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
//"single image processed HDR" is meaningless.// If you like to continue your theory, I don't wanna argue further. --Anton·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 03:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the reality is that it is no one specific meaning, leaving it to use however anyone wants for whatever their purposes. North8000 (talk) 11:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Lede image candidates - straw poll

Here are some possible candidate images for the lede, selected based on these criteria:

  • Represents the technique with a full tonal range from light to dark, without large areas of black or white clipping (loss of shadow detail; blown highlights)
  • Colors are not exaggerated, over-saturated or grossly unreal
  • Local contrast is not extreme, especially in skies resulting in a gritty gray look (some of the nominated images push the limit of this)
  • The image is largely free of halos
  • The subject is recognizable
  • Confirmed as having the source images available to prepare a collage as the current lead image has.

For those interested, please vote for the one that you think best represents HDR Tone Mapping, or nominate your own choice by adding it to the gallery. You can also add criteria to the above list if you think there is anything that I missed. - MrX 15:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

  • 1
    1
  • 2
    2
  • 4
    4
  • 5
    5
  • 6
    6
  • 7
    7
  • 8
    8
  • 9
    9
  • 10
    10
  • 11
    11
  • 12
    12
Votes only (chose one image; comments go in the next section)
Comments

I would oppose any image that does not meet the "sources images confirmed as being available" criteria. North8000 (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that may useful, I don't think all of the prior lede images had source exposure or were in a montage format. I'm not entirely opposed to it, I just don't think it's entirely necessary. Of course, you can nominate a montage if you like. - MrX 22:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Two problems with image 9: There doesn't seem to be any originals available (and I think a montage is the only way to truly show what HDRI is, otherwise you get misconceptions like the one below), and the image shows considerable distortion. That said, I do think that an interior shot with windows may be the way to go. A 'room with a view' is the quintessential application of HDRI. nagualdesign (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Update

There doesn't seem to be clear consensus in this discussion, but what I glean from it is that the lede image should be a montage (or at least have available source images) and that an interior shot would be desirable. I will browse through Commons again to see if I can find any new candidates. Failing that, I may upload one or two of my own. I shot a Greek Orthodox church interior a few months ago and haven't yet post processed it, so that may work. I also have some interior shots of a Ritz Carlton with window views.- MrX 00:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Better examples?

Could someone more experienced create better example images? The current examples don't seem to do HDR jsutice, even simple correction of the -2 stop image gives much better results than these two examples.--2A00:1028:83D4:436:CD3B:25AA:61D9:B047 (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I have replaced the lead image per the above discussion. The examples are supposed to illustrate HDR, not necessarily be the most aesthetically pleasing. Perhaps someone will be able to find or produce better examples.- MrX 14:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 5 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move, although it looks like the general notion of high dynamic range might deserve a broad-concept article. — JFG talk 00:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

High-dynamic-range imaging → High dynamic range – Per WP:COMMONNAME since it is used by the vast majority of articles and by organizations such as ATSC, CEA, DVB, ITU, UHD Alliance, and Ultra HD Forum. I rarely see HDRI used outside of Wikipedia. GrandDrake (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. — JFG talk 09:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The vast majority of people looking for high dynamic range will be looking for information on images and video so this would fall under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Also almost all of the articles from reliable sources I have seen refer to it as HDR which can be seen in a comparison of HDR to HDRI on Google News. --GrandDrake (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't see why you would want to drop the noun part of the title, even if you would decide the primarytopic applies; better to let it redirect from the shorter title to the one that includes the noun that the topic is about: imaging. Dicklyon (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of redirecting high dynamic range to the primary topic here, leaving a dab hatnote. fgnievinski (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Why would you do that? That's a primarytopic grab without consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Suggest rewriting it as a WP:DAB page. I convert bad redirs to those all the time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
From what I can see the only reason there isn't a main article on HDR is because this article was originally about compositing multiple images together to create HDR. --GrandDrake (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
There's no such page as High dynamic range audio, so why would that be a consideration? Also, "thousands of books do use "HDR imaging"" is no more relevant or credible than the similar unsupported claim that "thousands of books do use "HDR"- MrX 21:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Dicklyon (who is a subject-matter expert), and per GrandDrake's objection to conversion of this from a noun to an adjective title, which we would normally not do, as covered at the WP:AT policy. Nom's rational that GHits for "HDR" prefer this topic over others is irrelevant, since the acronym form is not under discussion as a potential article title.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:TITLEFORMAT is for deciding on questions not covered by the five principles. Having competing HDR articles on Wikpedia leads to awkward statements such as "The Ultra HD Forum will help navigate amongst the standards related to high-dynamic-range imaging (HDRI) and rendering (HDRR)" which isn't supported by any of the references in that article. It would be far better to have a main article on HDR which could than have subarticles on specific topics (images, video, computer rendering, etc...). Having a main article for HDR would be more concise and more natural. --GrandDrake (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
It makes perfect sense to have separate articles on HDR capture and photography versus HDR computer graphics, no matter what you call them. If you'd like a main summary-style article, it could be HDR imaging, with HDR photography as one of the subs. Dicklyon (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense for Wikipedia to have two completely separate articles on HDR which is causing people to link to both of them (and in the case of Ultra HD Forum to use terms that aren't used by any of the references). It would be more concise, natural, and recognizable to have a main article on high dynamic range that could than have subarticles on images, video, rendering, and anything else that is needed. High dynamic range is by far the most commonly used term in reliable sources and is the only term I have seen used in recent HDR standards such as Dolby Perceptual Quantizer and Hybrid Log-Gamma. --GrandDrake (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
A top-level summary-style article that covers imaging, audio, and other applications might make sense, but to move this one doesn't. Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Dolby Perceptual Quantizer and Hybrid Log-Gamma are HDR standards that are based on human vision. Also in the context of PRIMARYTOPIC do you believe that most people who search for high dynamic range are looking for the Frostbite game engine mixing technique that allows louder sounds to drown out softer sounds or that they are looking for XDR (eXtended Dynamic Range) which is a duplication process that can be used in the production of pre-recorded audio cassettes? Based on PRIMARYTOPIC I think it would be better to move this article and than make changes to it. --GrandDrake (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Here is a comparison of high dynamic range to high-dynamic-range imaging on Google News. I see no reason for Wikipedia to have two completely separate articles on HDR (High-dynamic-range imaging and High-dynamic-range rendering). It would be more concise, more natural, and more recognizable to have a main article on high dynamic range with subarticles on specific topics. --GrandDrake (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High-dynamic-range imaging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

normal version of HDR image

This article is fairly useless for most users without a normal version of an HDR image, f.ex. http://taking-stock.org.uk/Home/Dioceses/Diocese-of-Lancaster/Blackpool-St-Kentigern --Espoo (talk) 05:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Gustave Le Gray - Brig upon the Water - Google Art Project.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Gustave Le Gray - Brig upon the Water - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 8, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-05-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Early high-dynamic-range image
An early example of high-dynamic-range imaging, captured by Gustave Le Gray in 1854. For this image, which was impossible at the time using standard methods owing to the extreme luminosity range, Le Gray combined one exposure for the sky and another longer one for the sea. Today, photographs with high dynamic range are primarily produced through computer renderings or merging multiple low-dynamic-range images; special image sensors, such as an oversampled binary image sensor, may also be used.Photograph: Gustave Le Gray
Archive – More featured pictures...

The above Le Gray photo

I'm under the impression that photos taken at the time had to have absolutely no movement in order to avoid any blurring. As such, I think the wording/text of "another longer [exposure] for the sea" is not correct.

At the time, in order to avoid motion-blurring, the subject, or elements, could not move. If, indeed, there was a longer exposure, the moving water should have some blurring; as well as the ship/boat and the animals on shore. I find it rather hard to believe that all the elements held still for the time it took for the "longer" exposure.

Or sm I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:785:1300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 09:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Multiple uses of the term

After the article just got tagged for being too technical I started reading through it. Different uses of the HDR term do make some parts confusing. Regarding this, HDR is used to refer to:

  • The entire HDR process, or any portion of it
  • The raw unprocessed image set or imaging data which has a HDR to store HDR data.
  • The final image which represents the HDR image/data in a media which is not HDR

I think that the multiple meanings of the term follows reality and the use of the term in sources. I'm planning on adding some clarifications reflecting the above.North8000 (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Time travel?

The article says that «On October 28, 1998, Ben Sarao created»«The image was first exhibited»«in 1999 and then published in Hasselblad Forum, Issue 3 1993». Cannot be 1993, though. Tuvalkin (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Page name: "HDR imaging" vs "HDR (photography technique)"

This page was previously named "High-dynamic-range imaging". I changed it to "High Dynamic Range (photography technique)". The two terms should be distinguished. I think this page should be dedicated to the HDR photography technique. (This was already the case, despite the previous name.)

"HDR imaging" is more general and includes "HDR capture technique", "HDR rendering", etc. HDR imaging can be treated in the more general High dynamic range. There is now a section in the HDR page for that purpose. SH4ever (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:High dynamic range which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:High dynamic range which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ "CinePaint Frequently Asked Questions". Retrieved 2009-08-31. [dead link‍]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Multi-exposure_HDR_capture/Archive_2&oldid=1137025505"