Moose wrote:
> C'mon Dan, you know we are talking here about range to contain the
> combined DR of several 12-14 bit, bracketed shots. I mean it can hold
> all that without losing any of the tonal detail of the originals.
That's certainly fair -- it's sacrificing a strictly accurate
representation of the original image by reducing the actual dynamic
range of the file -- which gives you something which has an
approximation to the same visual effect, or at least, which pulls all
the different levels of brightness into the range that can be
represented on a monitor.
> And yet, I object to the characterization of HDR, "an "HDR" image
> actually has a lower dynamic range than the original scene did"
> based on the limited output DR, without reference to the much greater
> range in the file.
Ah, now I think we're talking about different things.
The HDR images on Flickr aren't HDR in the sense you're using here --
they're just standard 8-bit jpegs displayed on a normal monitor, with
the same dynamic range as any other jpeg.
Now, the intermediate files created halfway through the process
certainly _are_ HDR images -- but that's not what we download, and even
if we did, there's no useful way to display those with current display
technology, so they have to be squashed down to a dynamic range that can
be displayed.
> You say "just". I think it rather wonderful to have the full range to
> work with in making my own compression and clipping decisions. I can do
> more than I could with a more limited original file. Even the greater
> range of a 5D RAW file has much shadow/highlight detail to work with
> than slide film.
That's certainly fair -- even 16-bit versions of Photoshop give you a
lot more room to play in (or, I guess, less loss while you do your
playing around).
-- dan
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|