41–50 of 352 posts
So, if cameras have poor dynamic range, how are they getting away with a single exposure? They didn't explain that at all...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. HDR can encode high dynamic range because (typically) it uses floating point encoding. From a technical point of view, HDR is just a set of standards and formats for encoding absolute-luminance scene-referred images and video, along with a set of standards for reproduction.
No. HDR video (and images) don't use floating point encoding. They generally use a higher bit depth (10 bits or more vs 8 bits) to reduce banding and different transfer characteristics (i.e. PQ or HLG vs sRGB or BT.709), in addition to different YCbCr matrices and mastering metadata. And no, it's not necessarily absolute luminance. PQ is absolute, HLG is not.
Also DCI-P3 should fit in here somewhere, as it seems to be the most standardized color space for HDR. I would share more insight, if I had it. I thought I understood color profiles well, but I have encountered some challenges when trying to display in one, edit in another, and print “correctly”. And every device seems to treat color profiles a little bit differently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that the point of the article? That the colloquial meaning of HDR is quite overloaded, and when people complain about HDR, they mean bad tone-mapping? I say this as someone as close to totally ignorant about photography as you can get; I personally thought the article was pretty spectacular.
When I complain about HDR it's because I've intentionally set the brightness of pure white to a comfortable level, and then suddenly parts of my screen are brighter than that. You fundamentally can't solve that problem with just better tone mapping, can you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I complain about HDR it's because I've intentionally set the brightness of pure white to a comfortable level, and then suddenly parts of my screen are brighter than that. You fundamentally can't solve that problem with just better tone mapping, can you?
You can for some definition of "solve", by tone-mapping all HDR content back down into an SDR range for display.
I'm not entirely convinced that greedy influencers are to blame for people hating on overly bright content. Instead, I think something is different with how displays produce brightness compared to just the nature outside. Light outside is supposed to reach up to tens of thousands of nits, yet even 1000 nits is searing on a display. Is it that displays output polarized light? Is it the spectral distribution of especia…
Just one other thing. In Analog you also have compensating developers, which will exhaust faster in darker areas (or lighter if you think in negative), and allow for lighter areas more time to develop and show, and hence some more control of the range. Same but to less degree with stand development which uses very low dilutions of the developer, and no agitation. So dodging and burning is not the only way to achieve…
I still use it myself but I need to redo the build system and release it with an updated LibRaw... not looking forward to that.
Does anyone else find the hubris in the first paragraph writing as off-putting as I do? "we finally explain what HDR actually means" Then spends 2/3rds of the article on a tone mapping expedition, only to not address the elephant in the room, that is the almost complete absence of predictable color management in consumer-grade digital environments. UIs are hardly ever tested in HDR: I don't want my subtitles to burn…
Does anyone else find the hubris in the first paragraph writing as off-putting as I do? "we finally explain what HDR actually means" Then spends 2/3rds of the article on a tone mapping expedition, only to not address the elephant in the room, that is the almost complete absence of predictable color management in consumer-grade digital environments. UIs are hardly ever tested in HDR: I don't want my subtitles to burn…
Isn't that the point of the article? That the colloquial meaning of HDR is quite overloaded, and when people complain about HDR, they mean bad tone-mapping? I say this as someone as close to totally ignorant about photography as you can get; I personally thought the article was pretty spectacular.
As a photographer, I get the appeal of (this new incarnation of) HDR content, but the practical reality is that the photos I see posted in my feeds go from making my display looking normal to having photos searing my retinas, while other content that was uniform white a second prior now looks dull gray. It's late night here so I was reading this article in dark mode, at a low display brightness - and when I got to th…
Completely agree. To me, HDR feels like the system is ignoring my screen brightness settings. I set my screen brightness to a certain level for a reason . Please don’t just arbitrarily turn up the brightness! There is no good way to disable HDR on photos for iPhone, either. Sure, you can turn off the HDR on photos on your iphone. But then, when you cast to a different display, the TV tries to display the photos in HD…
On both Android & iOS/MacOS it's not that HDR is ignoring your screen brightness, but rather the brightness slider is controlling the SDR range and then yes HDR can exceed that, that's the singular purpose of HDR to be honest. All the other purported benefits of HDR are at best just about HDR video profiles and at worst just nonsense bullshit. The only thing HDR actually does is allow for brighter colors vs. SDR. When used selectively this really enhances a scene. But restraint is hard, and most forms of HDR content production are shit. The HDR images that newer iPhones and Pixel phones are capturing are generally quite good because they are actually restrained, but then ironically both of them have horrible HDR video that's just obnoxiously bright.