Photomatix HDR

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Bruce, Feb 22, 2008.

  1. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    I've just started using the trial version of Photomatix and have tried a
    couple of photos using 3 RAW photos and I can see the advantages.I aasume
    from what I've read in the instructions that you would use it only for
    certain types of shots,for example a church interior with stain glass windos
    through to shadows in the main body to mid tones round the altar. Any other
    people had experiance of this software and how long will it be before it is
    in the camera software?

    Best Wishes

    Bruce (Liverpool UK)
    Bruce, Feb 22, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bruce

    Craig Guest

    I've used Photomatrix for some HDR images. I like it it is pretty easy.

    Here are a few of mine (I'll have more up in the next few days)
    Craig, Feb 22, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bruce

    Guest Guest

    It will be sometime before you see real HDR in a camera. For one thing you
    have to shoot with a tripod, it doesn't work with moving images and the
    amount of memory and processing power required is far more than any camera
    has or will have for quite sometime.
    Guest, Feb 22, 2008
  4. Bruce

    steph Guest

    It's not necessary to generate a HDR-image out of a set of images -
    one image is also sufficient. No need for a tripod. I think some kind
    of HDR-functionality will appear quite fast in consumer cameras as
    it's a only a matter of how the firmware handles the dynamic range of
    a raw image to produce a jpeg. Quality is a different question.

    steph, Feb 22, 2008
  5. Bruce

    Guest Guest

    Nothing you have mentioned is an HDR image. To be a true HDR images it has
    to be from multiple exposures, not from any single image, etc. Get your term
    usage correct. As for true HDR being in a camera it won't happen until it
    has the processing power and memory of a desktop computer or laptop. A
    tripod is needed in order to shoot the multiple exposures otherwise they
    won't line up.

    If you want to talk poor cousin fakes then cameras like many Nikon already
    have a fake option. It isn't at all impressive, but if fake is your thing go
    for it. Just don't call it HDR.
    Guest, Feb 22, 2008
  6. Bruce

    Helge Olsen Guest

    HDR is "fake" as it usually is made from several exposures. Now go cry to
    Helge Olsen, Feb 23, 2008
  7. Bruce

    Toby Guest

    Apparently there is already a sensor that does native HDR by recording
    several images at different sensitivities and combining them using some
    tone-mapping algorithm. However, I have to agree with no_spam that there is
    a difference between an HDR image using different exposures merged and one
    which simply merges differently processed versions of the same image, as the
    latter is bound to have much lower noise and much better dynamic range. That
    being said, there is a huge advantage to the latter, which is that can do it
    with moving subjects...

    Toby, Feb 23, 2008
  8. Bruce

    Guest Guest

    Why don't go **** you momma. You know she can't get enough of your loven.
    Guest, Feb 24, 2008
  9. Bruce

    steph Guest

    I was saying: "Quality is a different question". So, regarding quality
    I'm with you, you need more than one exposure to generate a decent HDR-
    image. But nevertheless, the software I use also accepts only one
    picture to generate a HDR, and I must say, I was surprised about the
    result - if you may call it *true* HDR or not ...
    steph, Feb 26, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.