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: 87780" data-attributes="member: 9521"><p>Definition continued - (from <a href="http://www.hdrsoft.com/resources/dri.html#hdri" target="_blank">HDR images in photography - About Dynamic Range, Tone Mapping and HDR Imaging for Photography</a>)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Can't I just create the exposures from one RAW file?</strong></p><table style='width: 100%'><tr><td>Not really. Your RAW file contains data captured by the sensors for only <u>one</u> exposure. The total dynamic range you can reconstruct from one photo converted with different exposure settings can never be more than the dynamic range captured by your camera, and this is rather limited (see<a href="http://www.hdrsoft.com/resources/dri.html#depth" target="_blank">above</a>).<br /> <br /> <span style="color: #000000">Converting the RAW file to images with different exposure levels is a bit like slicing the dynamic range of the RAW into several parts. Combining the parts back into an HDR image will at best re-produce the dynamic range of the initial RAW file<br /> <br /> </span><span style="color: #000000">That said, if you are using a good RAW converter to derive fake exposures from a single RAW file, you will probably notice that the HDR image created from the fake exposures shows more dynamic range than the pseudo-HDR image obtained by converting the single RAW file directly. This is because your RAW converter includes a good noise reduction function, and this has an important effect on the </span><a href="http://www.hdrsoft.com/resources/dri.html#dr" target="_blank">dynamic range</a><span style="color: #000000">. You RAW converter may also include the ability to continue to retrieve highlights details when one or two of the color channels have already reached saturation<br /> <br /> </span><span style="color: #000000">So, a good RAW converter includes functions designed to optimize the dynamic range retrieved from the raw sensor data, but this does not change the fact that the dynamic range of a RAW file is limited to one exposure only. Unless the dynamic range of your scene is low, you will need to take more than one exposure to create an HDR image of the scene.</span></td><td></td></tr></table></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave_W, post: 87780, member: 9521"] Definition continued - (from [url=http://www.hdrsoft.com/resources/dri.html#hdri]HDR images in photography - About Dynamic Range, Tone Mapping and HDR Imaging for Photography[/url]) [B]Can't I just create the exposures from one RAW file?[/B] [TABLE="width: 100%"] [TR] [TD="class: texte, width: 97%"]Not really. Your RAW file contains data captured by the sensors for only [U]one[/U] exposure. The total dynamic range you can reconstruct from one photo converted with different exposure settings can never be more than the dynamic range captured by your camera, and this is rather limited (see[URL="http://www.hdrsoft.com/resources/dri.html#depth"]above[/URL]). [COLOR=#000000]Converting the RAW file to images with different exposure levels is a bit like slicing the dynamic range of the RAW into several parts. Combining the parts back into an HDR image will at best re-produce the dynamic range of the initial RAW file [/COLOR][COLOR=#000000]That said, if you are using a good RAW converter to derive fake exposures from a single RAW file, you will probably notice that the HDR image created from the fake exposures shows more dynamic range than the pseudo-HDR image obtained by converting the single RAW file directly. This is because your RAW converter includes a good noise reduction function, and this has an important effect on the [/COLOR][URL="http://www.hdrsoft.com/resources/dri.html#dr"]dynamic range[/URL][COLOR=#000000]. You RAW converter may also include the ability to continue to retrieve highlights details when one or two of the color channels have already reached saturation [/COLOR][COLOR=#000000]So, a good RAW converter includes functions designed to optimize the dynamic range retrieved from the raw sensor data, but this does not change the fact that the dynamic range of a RAW file is limited to one exposure only. Unless the dynamic range of your scene is low, you will need to take more than one exposure to create an HDR image of the scene.[/COLOR][/TD] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Photography
HDR
This Post is for Those Wondering if HDR is Worth the Effort
Top
