Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Photography
HDR
This Post is for Those Wondering if HDR is Worth the Effort
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave_W" data-source="post: 87778" data-attributes="member: 9521"><p>I think that would be an easy argument to win. HDR is defined as a 32-bit image - see definition below -</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">Whether an image may be considered High or Low Dynamic Range depends on several factors. Most often, the distinction is made depending on the number of bits per color channel that the digitized image can hold. However, the number of bits itself may be a misleading indication of the real dynamic range that the image reproduces -- converting a Low Dynamic Range image to a higher bit depth does not change its dynamic range, of course.</span></span> <table style='width: 100%'><tr><td><strong>·</strong></td><td><strong>8-bit</strong> images (i.e. 24 bits per pixel for a color image) are considered Low Dynamic Range.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>·</strong></td><td><strong>16-bit</strong> images (i.e. 48 bits per pixel for a color image) resulting from RAW conversion are still considered Low Dynamic Range, even though the range of values they can encode is much higher than for 8-bit images (65536 versus 256). Converting a RAW file involves applying a tonal curve that compresses the dynamic range of the RAW data so that the converted image shows correctly on low dynamic range monitors. The need to adapt the output image file to the dynamic range of the display is the factor that dictates how much the dynamic range is compressed, not the output bit-depth. By using 16 instead of 8 bits, you will gain precision but you will not gain dynamic range.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>·</strong></td><td><strong>32-bit</strong> images (i.e. 96 bits per pixel for a color image) are considered High Dynamic Range. Unlike 8- and 16-bit images which can take a finite number of values, 32-bit images are coded using floating point numbers, which means the values they can take is unlimited. It is important to note, though, that storing an image in a 32-bit HDR format is a necessary condition for an HDR image but <u>not</u> a sufficient one. When an image comes from a single capture with a standard camera, it will remain a Low Dynamic Range image, regardless of the format used to store it.</td></tr></table></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave_W, post: 87778, member: 9521"] I think that would be an easy argument to win. HDR is defined as a 32-bit image - see definition below - [COLOR=#000000][FONT=Verdana]Whether an image may be considered High or Low Dynamic Range depends on several factors. Most often, the distinction is made depending on the number of bits per color channel that the digitized image can hold. However, the number of bits itself may be a misleading indication of the real dynamic range that the image reproduces -- converting a Low Dynamic Range image to a higher bit depth does not change its dynamic range, of course.[/FONT][/COLOR][TABLE="width: 100%"] [TR] [TD="class: texte, width: 3%"][B]·[/B][/TD] [TD="class: texte, width: 97%"][B]8-bit[/B] images (i.e. 24 bits per pixel for a color image) are considered Low Dynamic Range.[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="class: texte, width: 3%"][B]·[/B][/TD] [TD="class: texte, width: 97%"][B]16-bit[/B] images (i.e. 48 bits per pixel for a color image) resulting from RAW conversion are still considered Low Dynamic Range, even though the range of values they can encode is much higher than for 8-bit images (65536 versus 256). Converting a RAW file involves applying a tonal curve that compresses the dynamic range of the RAW data so that the converted image shows correctly on low dynamic range monitors. The need to adapt the output image file to the dynamic range of the display is the factor that dictates how much the dynamic range is compressed, not the output bit-depth. By using 16 instead of 8 bits, you will gain precision but you will not gain dynamic range.[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="class: texte, width: 3%"][B]·[/B][/TD] [TD="class: texte, width: 97%"][B]32-bit[/B] images (i.e. 96 bits per pixel for a color image) are considered High Dynamic Range. Unlike 8- and 16-bit images which can take a finite number of values, 32-bit images are coded using floating point numbers, which means the values they can take is unlimited. It is important to note, though, that storing an image in a 32-bit HDR format is a necessary condition for an HDR image but [U]not[/U] a sufficient one. When an image comes from a single capture with a standard camera, it will remain a Low Dynamic Range image, regardless of the format used to store it.[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Photography
HDR
This Post is for Those Wondering if HDR is Worth the Effort
Top