Olympus E510 has poor dynamic range? Not any more.

With this software I can create photos that have way more dynamic range
than your expensive Nikon and Canon cameras. Well, once I learn how to use
it properly I can. I will be churning out photos that surpasse your
expnesive Nikon's capability on my cheapy Olympus E510 in no time.

http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/index.html

http://www.hdrsoft.com/

 

... and what display device will you use to show photos with such a dynamic
range, without compromising what you have created? By the way, such
software can use the data from almost any digital camera, irrespective of
brand, and form factor.

David

 

Um, nope. The one software app I listed can compensate for that too.

 

Thanks, I'll check that one out too. One of the apps I posted is only
$55.00 though and it does more than just tone mapping. Can compnesate for
moving subjects etc.

This wallpaper site has some really nice HDR photos. Check out this train
photo.

http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper/downloads/01627_441085atmuseum_
2560x1600.jpg

 

Irrelevant. Some people said $600.00 E510 has poor dynamic range and I am
just proving that with this software I can surpass the dynamic range of
even a pro Nikon or Canon.

 

Using that software I can create photos using an expensive Nikon and
Canon camera that has way more dynamic range than you "cheapy Olympus E510".

 

If you can't display what you have created, what's the point?

David

 

Don't be so quick to gloat my friend. Fuji S5 which takes Nikon lenses
can do what amounts to HDR for Olympus, in camera. One sensor for
highlights, one for darks.

 

Oh, no you won't, mister. I don't *have* an expensive Nikon.

 

uhm... a monitor, a printout, uhm...
Dynamic range is purely the amount captured range. When you
display that the way it is reproduced is governed by the
contrast ratio of the output device. It's always been the
case that at the printing stage you would control the
contrast to create the final image you wanted. A B&W neg
held a very wide dynamic range. When you printed it, you
could print with low contrast and have a print that retains
both shadow and highlight detail from the neg, or you could
print with high contrast, but lose some of the shadow and/or
highlight details.
Likewise with super HDR images - either print/display with
low contrast and display everything that the HDR contains,
or print/display with high contrast and lose some of the range.

 

And using that same software, Maat can use a cheapy P&S to create
photos that have more DR than his own Olympus E510 produces. As an
opinionated but very entertaining egomaniac once said, TANSTAAFL.

 

Doug,

I know of no reasonable-priced monitor or printer which will display the
full dynamic range of HDR, which may be one reason why the results can
look so ugly. Yes, with negatives and printing you could produce changes
with burning and dodging, but these were best done with minimum
intervention, and only selected areas of the image.

I welcome capturing a wide dynamic range (including more of the lens flare
<G>), but I think there is some way to go in understanding how best to use
and display such a range - at least judging by what I have seen posted so
far.

Cheers,
David

 

What is your opinion of this shot David?
http://www.d-mac.info/POD/POD-Aug-1408.htm

 

That reminds me of a very cheap camera system which was once offered
to the hobby robot arm community for inspecting the table top for
things you could pick up, such as chess pieces. It was so cheap
because it was simply a one pixel camera, a photosensor at the bottom
of a long thin tube. It could have been referred to as an elementary
insect eye, as opposed to the more usual compound insect eye.

All you had to do was use the robot arm to scan this drinking-straw
eye over the table. There were no focussing or depth of field
problems. Of course there were speed problems, but these could be
hugely reduced if you already had some idea what you were looking for
and where it was. Just a software problem as they say

 

D-Mac wrote:
[]

That's excellent, although the colours are oversaturated for my taste, the
foreground a little brighter than I would expect, and I'm not quite sure
about the way the mist changes across the city. This is well presented on
my simpel 8-bit display.

Cheers,
David

 

Ouch! That's tops my memories of using NEC Spinwriters and Diablo
printers to produce B&W graphics by finely positioning and striking
with the "period" character. At least the resolution and image
quality was much higher than the images produced in the college
computer centers years earlier using high speed page printers and
teletypes, but as with your robot, speed was an issue. The page
printers weren't nearly as slow as the teletypes, but one often had
to wait quite a while for the jobs to get queued, printed and
returned, assuming no JCL errors.

 

By some definitions, HDR means a larger than normal bit-depth file which
is way beyond any jpeg but these programs apply tone mapping to bring
out the contrast you want so it displays just fine on a print or
monitor. That's just an intermediary format.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

 

Paul Furman wrote:
[]

Agreed, Paul. I have no problem with that. Displaying such images does
need to be done carefully, though, when the display device can't handle
the full dynamic range. I have seem some HDR images, though, which are
far from "just fine".

This doesn't justify the OP's argument, of course, as such techniques are
applicable to /any/ camera, not just the Olympus E510.

David

 

I have an inexpensive one -- which is not addressed in your prediction at
all.

 

Don't know as I haven't even installed the software yet. I'm tyhe kind of
photographer that takes photos of mostly static subjects so it is not much
of an issue for me anyway.