Page 1 of 1

Puzzling entry in wiki: HDR workflow D

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 2:25 pm
by Aeriscera
The page on Workflow D has two examples. The first uses .jpgs and the second .nefs. For the first example the page says:

In this first example, we use a set of images in .jpg format on which we apply a color correction, then an export in HDR.
In practice, this doesn't present a great interest, but it helps to highlight the use of RAW images in input (see Example 2).

In what sense does the .jpg example "highlight" the use of RAW images? It seems to me that the processes are identical.

A

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 1:24 am
by hankkarl
I took it to mean "compare the HDR made using JPG to the one made using RAW"

highlight may not be the right word, "show the value of" may be a beter replacement for the word "highlight"

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 1:30 am
by klausesser
hankkarl wrote:I took it to mean "compare the HDR made using JPG to the one made using RAW"

highlight may not be the right word, "show the value of" may be a beter replacement for the word "highlight"

Hi pals :cool:!

Producing HDR works well using bracketed JPGs. 3 or more JPG with -2/0/+2 or so cover a defiitey ider range than one RAW. I had good experiences using JPGs for bracketing.
Nevertheless using RAWs i better - because you can edit it in a RAW processor and "tune" them to optimal JPGs or better TIFFs - here i suggest 16bit-TIFFs for feeding the HDR processor.

But it works also well using bracketed JPGs for making HDR.

best, Klaus

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 5:31 pm
by Aeriscera
hankkarl wrote:I took it to mean "compare the HDR made using JPG to the one made using RAW"

highlight may not be the right word, "show the value of" may be a beter replacement for the word "highlight"

Ah, thanks Hankkarl. I see what you mean now. In fact, assuming the RAW one is intended to look better than the JPG one "show that it is better to use RAW than JPG" would be even clearer. On the other hand, I looked at the two results (at full size) side by side and whilst it's clear they are not the same it isn't clear to me that one is better than the other.

Perhaps a more definitive example could be used (in an ideal world where someone has the time to do so!), perhaps including a 1:1 crop on a detail.

Just my 2c,

Aeris

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 7:06 pm
by klausesser
Aeriscera wrote:Perhaps a more definitive example could be used (in an ideal world where someone has the time to do so!), perhaps including a 1:1 crop on a detail.

An example: shot as bracketed jpg 3 steps (-2/0/+2) then processed to HDR in Photomatix, saved as TIFFs and stitched in APG:
http://360impressions.de/KBogen/ (700MPx and 3GPx - 35mm and 85mm lenses)

A 2nd example: shot as RAW 3 steps (-2/0/+2) then processed to HDR in Photomatix, saved as TIFFs and stitched in PG:
http://360impressions.de/Tourk21.html (50MPx)

A3rd example: shot as RAW, no HDR - processed in CaptureOne and stitched in APG:
http://www.360impressions.de/Kaufhof (700MPx - 35mm lens)
http://www.360impressions.de/Oper (3GPx - 85mm lens)

best, Klaus

PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 4:10 pm
by HansKeesom
Beginnersquestion problably

Even when loading in bracketed RAW files, I never seem to get the HDR option in the list as shown in the D-instruction. What conditions must be fullfilled before one gets that option?

kind regards,
Hans Keesom

PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 9:02 pm
by Aeriscera
Is the feature you are looking for part of AP Giga and not AP Pro and you have APP?

I can't think what else might be the problem - the screenshot shows that the .hdr option is available to me even if I load 8-bit tifs.

A

PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:07 am
by HansKeesom
The option I try to activate is shown at
http://www.autopano.net/wiki-en/action/view/Image:Autopano250_HDR-casE-HDRColorFix1_en.jpg

It is always disabled for me. I have autopano giga, alhtough autopano pro is also installed