I like my tv to have natural colours, so I can't quite get my head around HDR. To me, it seems that it's just going to improve the brightness of the screen and make colours more vivid, therefore more unnatural. Am I wrong?
chebby
Well-known member
- Jun 2, 2008
- 1,257
- 34
- 19,220
I only know about 'HDR' in stills photography where the results speak volumes ...
clicky
I don't know what it will look like in terms of television, but I have a bad feeling it's going to be the visual equivalent of 'The Loudness Wars' where everyone tries to outdo everyone else.
clicky
I don't know what it will look like in terms of television, but I have a bad feeling it's going to be the visual equivalent of 'The Loudness Wars' where everyone tries to outdo everyone else.
chebby said:
The images look more striking, but are they more natural? I think some people will definitely be happier with a HDR picture, my Dad certainly will, but I'm not convinced it'll be anything other than garish.
chebby
Well-known member
- Jun 2, 2008
- 1,257
- 34
- 19,220
BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW said:
The idea seems to be that the image will contain more 'dynamic range' than a traditional image (or the eye's view of the original scene) can handle. Simplistically you expose multiple times (for shadow detail and mid tones and highlights) and then 'merge' all the exposures into one image that contains everything.
It sounds like a good idea but I haven't seen any good results yet. Even the more 'conservative' applications of the technique look 'muddy' to me.
As you say, plenty of folk will love all the 'candy colour' effects but I hope it doesn't get over-applied.
Chebby, in photography people tend to confuse "tone mapping" with extending the dynamic range. Tone mapping is what gives the peculiar look that HDR is known for. When HDR is done right, it looks like nothing has been done at all. More shadow detail, more highlight detail, but importantly realistic tones.
BBB, HDR exist because the human eye can see a wider range of lights to darks than either current tv or most digital sensors can reproduce. Have you ever taken a photo on a digital camera and to the naked eye you see lots of subtle shades of whites and greys in the clouds, yet on the screen you only see a solid lump of white? Even worse, when you see a blue sky but it shows up as white on the camera?
A digital sensor with a wide dynamic range can record this data, but we need brighter screens to reproduce this data. If we don't have brighter screens, the TV needs to crush the dynamic range to fit the display causing weird tones.
BBB, HDR exist because the human eye can see a wider range of lights to darks than either current tv or most digital sensors can reproduce. Have you ever taken a photo on a digital camera and to the naked eye you see lots of subtle shades of whites and greys in the clouds, yet on the screen you only see a solid lump of white? Even worse, when you see a blue sky but it shows up as white on the camera?
A digital sensor with a wide dynamic range can record this data, but we need brighter screens to reproduce this data. If we don't have brighter screens, the TV needs to crush the dynamic range to fit the display causing weird tones.
As an example, here are two photos before and after an extention of dynamic range. This is not using multiple exposure, this is by manipulating the exposures in the highlights and shadows but it visualises the point.
The tones remain similar, but more shadow information and more highlight information is available. Hope this helps.
The tones remain similar, but more shadow information and more highlight information is available. Hope this helps.
I'm not convinced. I get the point about a digital camera not reflecting in the photo what I could see with my eye, and looking at some of the comparison images on the net, the cloud formations looks quite stunning with HDR, but I'm not convinced that the final result won't be garish and unnatural.
BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW said:
I would ignore HDR photography full stop, it is a missnomer and not the same thing as with TVS. HDR photography is an artistic tool, its not used to create a more realsistic image.
"Wide dynamic range" would be a more accurate term.
This review is good for talking about HDR:
http://www.cnet.com/products/samsung-ubd-k8500/
'Looks like you need a good TV to start with.
http://www.cnet.com/products/samsung-ubd-k8500/
'Looks like you need a good TV to start with.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Would a HiFi setup sound better than a home cinema setup for music?
- Started by R2D2
- Replies: 54
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram