|
|
Open source HDR editor
About Truespace Archives
These pages are a copy of the official truespace forums prior to their removal somewhere around 2011.
They are retained here for archive purposes only.
Open source HDR editor // Roundtable
Post by Jack Edwards // Jul 19, 2007, 6:48am
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
Was looking something up and stumbled across this. Looks pretty useful for making our own HDR files:
http://qtpfsgui.sourceforge.net/ |
Post by RAYMAN // Jul 19, 2007, 9:29am
|
RAYMAN
Total Posts: 1496
|
Thank you Jack !:)
Will give it a spin .....;) |
Post by RichLevy // Jul 19, 2007, 11:24am
|
RichLevy
Total Posts: 1140
|
Nice find Jack, I have a ton of things to try it on here. I have been using Photomatix, it does tone mapping of LDR's as well as HDR also. It will be interesting to see how they compare.
Thanks.
Rich |
Post by Burnart // Jul 19, 2007, 12:53pm
|
Burnart
Total Posts: 839
|
Is this going to let me "fake" an hdr image or is it just another HDRShop? (From the info page it just looks like HDRShop)- enquiring minds want to know! :) |
Post by transient // Jul 19, 2007, 1:33pm
|
transient
Total Posts: 977
|
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately the free version of HDR shop has limitations on it's usage (i.e no commercial), so this is nice.:cool: |
Post by RAYMAN // Jul 19, 2007, 1:33pm
|
RAYMAN
Total Posts: 1496
|
Is this going to let me "fake" an hdr image or is it just another HDRShop? (From the info page it just looks like HDRShop)- enquiring minds want to know! :)
Well if you want to know if it just loads up one picture (one exposure value )
and save as a HDR .... it does.
The files that I loaded into C4d gave a prompt ... bad texture .
So thats not that good
:o
Its a little bit different to Hdr shop ... could be I have done something wrong ... but I´m working at it.
:) |
Post by rj0 // Jul 19, 2007, 1:53pm
|
rj0
Total Posts: 167
|
Rayman,
I found that, after selecting the list of photos to import, I then had to click on each (in the list) and set its exposure value, then click the next, repeat, until all have exposures.
rj
P.S. It doesn't appear to even come close to Photomatix in functionality (but then again, it's free -). |
Post by RAYMAN // Jul 19, 2007, 2:03pm
|
RAYMAN
Total Posts: 1496
|
Rayman,
I found that, after selecting the list of photos to import, I then had to click on each (in the list) and set its exposure value, then click the next, repeat, until all have exposures.
rj
P.S. It doesn't appear to even come close to Photomatix in functionality (but then again, it's free -).
Well it did prompt me with the same red warning about the exposure values too!Sort of cant read the exifs ...
In the end the Hdr worked pretty much like the one from Hdr shop. |
Post by Burnart // Jul 19, 2007, 3:06pm
|
Burnart
Total Posts: 839
|
I'm an excessively lazy amateur. I don't want to get out there with a decent camera, tripod and shiney silver ball taking carefully calibrated photos. I just want to take any old image chuck it into a program which pushes and pulls the high and low ends of the images brightness into something resembling hdr intensities and then outputs as an hdri image. Of course ideally it should be warped or repeated such as to avoid tell tale reflected edges. :D |
Post by Jack Edwards // Jul 20, 2007, 2:58am
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
LOL I'm with Burnart. I'm a decent photographer and I do have a Nikkon D-40, but really I just want to be able to paint the sides of my sky box (vertical cross), adjust to a few different brightnesses and save out an HDR. ;)
I DL'd it, but haven't had a chance to play with it yet. Glad to hear that it's working for some of you.
-Jack. |
Post by RichLevy // Jul 20, 2007, 3:26am
|
RichLevy
Total Posts: 1140
|
One thing to keep in mind. When you use a program like this, HDShop, or Photomatix to take a LDR 8 bit image and convert it to an HDR. All you are really doing is taking an 8 bit image and turning it into an 8 bit image with a 16/32 bit file format. There will be no information in the upper bits. As long as you are aware of that you will be fine. It will/should fill out the lower 8 bit information to be smoother gradients if there is enough room for this information... it will not be able to "guess what should be in the upper bits though.
I will admit that I have done this many times though, and a lot of times I achieved very good results...
Still I have not found any time to play with this program, been very busy around here.
Rich |
Post by Jack Edwards // Jul 20, 2007, 6:52am
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
I imagine if the images are tweaked to create the extra exposure levels, then complied HDR would have that extra detail. Guess I need to try it out first though. LOL
Custom HDRs that we could have that much control over would be awesome.
-Jack. |
Post by RAYMAN // Jul 20, 2007, 7:31am
|
RAYMAN
Total Posts: 1496
|
I imagine if the images are tweaked to create the extra exposure levels.......
-Jack.
Jack I dont understand that......
If you dont have the information in the series of pics then
you are not able to get it anytime.It wont be a "High" dynamic range picture.
What you can do is combine ... any exposure of jpeg and output as
a .hdr file. You can even tweak the Hdr to low or high contrast...
(although the incorporated histogram and sliderbar is realy small and fidly).
So its realy not a bad idea to make 3 exposures every time you take
(Hdrs or backgrounds) !!! |
Post by Jack Edwards // Jul 20, 2007, 8:47am
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
You create a series of darker and lighter versions of the image and tweak the lighting range on each of the images. Plus paint in extra detail and color if needed. It wouldn't be that much different than taking multiple photos that are lighter and darker.
-Jack. |
Post by RAYMAN // Jul 20, 2007, 9:17am
|
RAYMAN
Total Posts: 1496
|
You create a series of darker and lighter versions of the image and tweak the lighting range on each of the images. Plus paint in extra detail and color if needed. It wouldn't be that much different than taking multiple photos that are lighter and darker.
-Jack.
You dont get more dynamic range if you tweak the lighting range.
Paint in extra detail is very much like painting the whole thing.
Youd have to paint the whole shadow range and the whole highlight range.
Pressing the button three times and with some cameras the inbuilt
exposure series function is a lot easier .
Its better to combine a small amount of very well made HDRIs with
simple one shot backdrops. The backdrop and the sphere in most cases
dont have to be the same. You only see them in the reflections anyway .
About 50 well made Hdri´s can be combined with thousands of pictures
you use on a backdrop (cube or plane.. )
Well if your not into virtual worlds an need the whole panorama or sphere
that is... |
Post by RichLevy // Jul 20, 2007, 9:35am
|
RichLevy
Total Posts: 1140
|
You are creating a series of LDR images, information that is not in the image to begin with will not automatically fill the other bit fields with information.
The closest thing you can get away with, though it is not completely the same is to take a RAW image straight from your camera and use that to create the new exposures from. Though if the image you are using is over exposed, you may have a hard time trying to get the same information back.
Finding a paint program that can paint with all of the tools for 32 bit images... there are some that make use of some of the tools, not the full spectrum. I am sure this will change in the future, just right now you might be better of working with bracketed raw images from a digital camera to get the type of pictures you need for full HDR photos.
I am no snob about HDR photography, I agree it is a pain in the a$$. I do it only when I am forced to. I do a lot of hi resolution panorama photography (it takes some 96 photos to take a complete pano, now multiply that by 3... and than figure in the time it takes to merge each frame, than stitch all 96 HDR frames into 1 pano....) a lot of work... Creating HDR's thru 16 bit tiffs, or over and under exposing a RAW file becomes a natural... In some situations this is going to be fine... it all depends on the type of shot you are shooting, how you shoot it and the format you are using to move it around in.
Can you do it? Yes, can you fake it... to a point yes (assuming you are sticking to raw or 16 bit tiffs, 8 bit JPegs you are best just sticking with Tone MApping).
Been there and done it... when people said to me what I am saying to you I thought the same thing. I know now that I was wrong :D, I didn't think so then... lol
Rich |
Post by Jack Edwards // Jul 20, 2007, 11:02am
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
@ Rayman -- resampling smaller will create interpolated extra bit depth, so I would modify the exposure curves for the different exposures to be created before resampling like I do with my photography work. It's not like you can work with a 3000 pixel wide HDR anyway lol.
@ Rich -- Guess I'll just have to take you're word for it. The way I'd understood it, the HDR files are floating point images, usually created from a series of LDR (24bit) images at a range of exposures from dark to light...?
My point was that I want to use created backgrounds as opposed to photos which are too situation specific.
Another interesting thing that might be useful is that VRay output can be saved as HDR. It would be interesting to Render out our own sides, top, and bottom and edit for a Vertical Cross or Horizontal Cross type HDR which could then be used for lighting in scenes.
I am curious about one thing, any of you guys know how the probe shots are done without the camera showing in the shot?
-Jack. |
Post by RAYMAN // Jul 20, 2007, 11:43am
|
RAYMAN
Total Posts: 1496
|
@ Rayman -- resampling smaller will create interpolated extra bit depth, so I would modify the exposure curves for the different exposures to be created before resampling like I do with my photography work. It's not like you can work with a 3000 pixel wide HDR anyway lol.
I am curious about one thing, any of you guys know how the probe shots are done without the camera showing in the shot?
-Jack.
To the first part of your answer .... I was talking about floating point..
resizing is another issue
To use raw and 16 bit is a big jump in the right direction.
If you dont have the tonal information there is no way to get that
other than combining the exposure values of more then one exposure.
There is no way to fake tonal range !
To the second part and your question.
As a professional photographer I read a lot and I know of special
cameras that are designed to make plates for automotive companies.
those are basicaly 3d scanners ... that scan 360 deg and output
the finished spherical file via hooked computer.
When the companies need the product in a special location
they send a small team of around 2-3 people with that camera to a far
location and its realy an easy setup.Its a small unit(on a tripot) that rotates
around its own axis or is rotated manualy.So that way it cant be in the picture.
Here is an example from spheron :
http://www.spheron.com/en/PI_spherocamhdr_technical_specification/PI_spherocamhdr_technical_specification.php
hope that helps
;) |
Post by RichLevy // Jul 20, 2007, 12:09pm
|
RichLevy
Total Posts: 1140
|
@ Rayman -- resampling smaller will create interpolated extra bit depth, so I would modify the exposure curves for the different exposures to be created before resampling like I do with my photography work. It's not like you can work with a 3000 pixel wide HDR anyway lol.
@ Rich -- Guess I'll just have to take you're word for it. The way I'd understood it, the HDR files are floating point images, usually created from a series of LDR (24bit) images at a range of exposures from dark to light...?
My point was that I want to use created backgrounds as opposed to photos which are too situation specific.
Another interesting thing that might be useful is that VRay output can be saved as HDR. It would be interesting to Render out our own sides, top, and bottom and edit for a Vertical Cross or Horizontal Cross type HDR which could then be used for lighting in scenes.
I am curious about one thing, any of you guys know how the probe shots are done without the camera showing in the shot?
-Jack.
An LDR image would be classified as an 8bit jpeg picture. As long as you are talking about 16 bit or Raws you are talking full resolution pictures that are capturing as much information as the camera sensor is able to process. In the case of these pictures you would be able to convert them as you suggest to HDR by adjusting the exposure stops... assuming the information is still in the picture to process.
As for a pano heads available, there are a wide variety available, ranging from 60.00 to many thousand. I have a head that goes for a couple of hundred dollars. It is a special head that is attched to my tripod and allows the camera lens to spin around it's Nodal Point (the point in the lens where all of the light converges... Depeding on the settings and the lens that I use I can make a complete QTVR of a place in 6 images, or several hundred :). I can make the resolution from 5K X 5K up to 60K across :). Most people I know that shoot HDR's are using 6 images (X3) to make there scenes...
Your question about seeing the camera in the dome often refers to low budget solutions that usually use a chrome ball of some type. You point the camera at the ball than shoot. Delete the camera image in Photoshop by cloning out it's image... or you are using the image as a light source in your picture so the camera still on the image is no problem.
The HDR's I shoot can be used as complete scenery in your image... they are big, and they choke many 3D programs.
Hope that is of some use.
http://forums1.caligari.com/truespace/showthread.php?t=3223
post #89 for a QTVR I shot a couple of weeks ago.
Rich |
Post by RAYMAN // Jul 20, 2007, 12:39pm
|
RAYMAN
Total Posts: 1496
|
An LDR image would be classified as an 8bit jpeg picture. As long as you are talking about 16 bit or Raws you are talking full resolution pictures that are capturing as much information as the camera sensor is able to process.
As for a pano heads available, there are a wide variety available
Rich
Rich !
In that point we are not of the same opinion !
16 bit raws are LDR IMAGES too !
HDR Images start where LDR ends and thats around 5 stops more and
is realy open end .
ad b )The solution I was talking about was an example of a standard sphero
camera... not a ball head..thats as much a low end solution as
the shiny ball solution is.
You should read the spec sheet and the F-stops on it (thats HDR!)
As for the shiny ball ... the longer your focal length the smaller your camera
will be because you are further away from your target.
The way you discribed to make panos and comp them together with
the hdr programs is very work intensiv.
Would not work with automotiv industry rendering ..... time is money
:D |
Post by RichLevy // Jul 20, 2007, 1:36pm
|
RichLevy
Total Posts: 1140
|
Rich !
In that point we are not of the same opinion !
16 bit raws are LDR IMAGES too !
HDR Images start where LDR ends and thats around 5 stops more and
is realy open end .
ad b )The solution I was talking about was an example of a standard sphero
camera... not a ball head..thats as much a low end solution as
the shiny ball solution is.
You should read the spec sheet and the F-stops on it (thats HDR!)
As for the shiny ball ... the longer your focal length the smaller your camera
will be because you are further away from your target.
The way you discribed to make panos and comp them together with
the hdr programs is very work intensiv.
Would not work with automotiv industry rendering ..... time is money
:D
Well technically you are correct. A LDR may be considered a 16 bit Tiff from your camera or a 16 bit Raw. But I am sure you will full heartily agree that a 16 bit raw from your camera is not the same animal as an 8 bit Tiff or JPeg? That is why I stopped in classifying an LDR at an 8 bit Tiff/JPeg. This is why when you are making full HDR pictures you really should be bracketing shots from your camera in Raw mode.
Now as far as you insulting my pano head and saying that it is as low tech as a christmas tree ornament :D There I whole heartedly disagree. And I can point you to many sites where people such as myself are using panoheads in the same class as myself to do very highend work. I even have one I am working on that is fully electronic and computer controlled. It will be able to work with a 200mm lens and will shot several hundread pictures (600 of more) to make a pano... Now because you know that an auto company uses some make of pano head, and you feel it is state of the art, does not mean every other technology is inferior to it and does not merit consideration or a second look. It is not the quality of the hardware that is important but the quality of the artisan that is using it :)
As far as my workflow, it is designed for a specific industry (or a series of industries). My technique is completely out of place in the realestate market, there a low tech system is incorporated, much like the dome ball that has been mentioned. 1 picture, collect your 50-10.00 and go on to the next house.
If you are looking for a very hi quality picture for a matte painting for a movie, or for an archviz project, for something that requires you to get as much detail into your scene as possible... this is the technique. Other than using a 36 megapixel Hasselblatt, you will be hard pressed to produce images of higher detail than I can. That specialized camera/pano gear you are so proud of, can you afford to purchase it? Can you even rent it? What are they going to charge you to to come to your site to do these high quality panos?
I work with people that have produced content good enough for feature films... All done on low tech technology like what I am using :)
So before you snear at my setup, stick your nose in the air and insult what I use... look at what you are doing, can you produce images over 60K across? With scripting my process can be great automated, to the point where I mostly have to set up a series of panos just by loading a series of folders into my software and let it run on my extra pc for however long it takes.
Shooting a 100-150 frames of pictures may take 1/2 an hour or so. Mostly it depends on the place that I am shooting. Can your friends with their automaker pano wander put it in a hiking pack and take panos from on top of a mountain? Set it up in a stream and do a pano?
Everythiong is very relavent, to you anything below your state of the art pano is low tech, to me these so called low tech solutions are a way for me to creat something I would not otherwise be able to.
Rich |
Post by RAYMAN // Jul 20, 2007, 2:11pm
|
RAYMAN
Total Posts: 1496
|
Now as far as you insulting my pano head and saying that it is as low tech as a christmas tree ornament :D
So before you snear at my setup.......
Rich
HEHEHEHEHE ...... you are totaly right !!!!!:D
Because we were asked to what setup people use I just pointed out
what is out there to unlimited budget users and the idea behind it
is very much the same method you are using with a ballhead and doing
things manualy. Its all I can afford too.
But its nice for some people who ask to know that there are automated
versions on the market.
;)
So keep up the good work .......:)
Peter |
Post by RichLevy // Jul 20, 2007, 2:25pm
|
RichLevy
Total Posts: 1140
|
NP Peter. It is always good as you say to know what the market is like. It is an industry that is still very young. Things are changing all of the time. I wasn't going to let your gentle nudge of my beloved equipment go by (Gotta protect the girls :D ). I have pumped a bunch of money in all of this equipment, far more than all of my 3D software and I own a buch of that too!
Nice chatting HDR, LDR and photography with you :D
Rich |
Post by RAYMAN // Jul 20, 2007, 3:15pm
|
RAYMAN
Total Posts: 1496
|
I have pumped a bunch of money in all of this equipment, far more than all of my 3D software and I own a buch of that too!
Nice chatting HDR, LDR and photography with you :D
Rich
Nice to chat with you too. A person with a broad view of
things is always welcome.
I too have pumped a lot of money into photography
and 3D.Its always a pleasure to see people come up
with alternative solutions.
I for myself spend very much time on
reading ..... although some solutions are
out of reach one can always learn from them.
Although I still cant afford a medium format digi
back I have learned a lot about high end digital solutions.
Peter |
Post by RichLevy // Jul 20, 2007, 4:10pm
|
RichLevy
Total Posts: 1140
|
Medium Format is really starting to gain some headway in digital. A couple of years ago the only professional options were Canon and Nikon in the DSLR... now things are heating up in the DSLR. Digital photography has some amazing potential. Prices of the highend stuff is slowly dropping (though not as fast as I would like). People are doing some really cool things with digital cameras. Ariel kite panoramas. Still panos with sound, moving clouds in your panos. Short films being made with DSLR cameras...
I am even experimenting with doing large pano time lapse photography :) 2 DSLR's with wide angle lens hooked together to the same shutter release. They cover 160 degrees of the sky... I only need the money for the lens :) I have the 2 Canon 30D cameras, the shutter release, the custom cable, the custom pano head mount... It's all wow factor type stuff, some of it has no practical applications. But it is cool to see what you can do with it.
Rich |
Post by RAYMAN // Jul 20, 2007, 4:29pm
|
RAYMAN
Total Posts: 1496
|
It's all wow factor type stuff, some of it has no practical applications. But it is cool to see what you can do with it.
Rich
Well there is lots of it to come .
Its actualy pretty difficult to keep up with the pace.... things are evolving
so fast !
It must be even harder to run a business as big as Romans
and always keep up with the pace of technology.
He has the responsability for a lot of people and the
competition is very strong .
Its not like it used to be when in the olden days 3d software used to cost
50 x what it does now.
When I buy something and make a mistake and the product
turns out to be less usefull .... well I have learned something...
but if a big company makes a mistake ... it could be the end.
Anyway ... new technology is great fun !
;)
Peter |
Post by Jack Edwards // Jul 20, 2007, 11:40pm
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
Interesting discussion guys.
Seems like you guys are arguing more quality of HDR itself rather than simply creating background for lighting that are better than an 8 bit image lol.
Of course most displays are only 8bit depth and some LCD now come 6 bit depth so it seems to me that practical use for 16bit depth and floating point formats is limited to image rendering and better quality post processing, but not necessarily relevant for final result in a digital medium.
Now to bring this back to 3D, in your guy's experience at what point does the quality difference become noticeable in our 3D renderings? Also considering the practical limitations of 32-bit memory addressing currently?
A what point do we reach the balance point where where resolution provides more practical benefit than bit-depth?
I imagine one of the advantages of the floating point image (assuming the curves have been smoothed from the original image) would be less banding in the lighting produced which is definite a problem that can easily be seen with projection lights and straight background images which are in finite 8-bit formats.
-Jack. |
Post by RichLevy // Jul 21, 2007, 1:11am
|
RichLevy
Total Posts: 1140
|
From the standpoint of your monitor... you are correct, most modern monitors are not capable of displaying true HDR images. But they have been showing up in the industry for the last year or so. So things are going in an HDR direction for the future.
How does HDR effect you presently with doing your 3D? Well beyond the obvious effects that most people are aware of... Look at a program like VTour (http://imagemodeler.realviz.com/products/VT/index.php?language=EN), the ability to use HDR panoramas and than convert them to 3D environments, you are creating a more dynamic lighting environment. Depending on the environment, I would say that the lighting gives a warmer, full kind of feeling.
To me, HDR is still developing, it is obviously a great light source for your 3D renderings, the web is full of great examples of that... the interesting stuff is still to happen. Camera sensors are being developed that will be able to approach what film can do. Digital video cameras are heading in the same direction, monitors as I had previously mentioned are starting to show up to display the more full dynamic ranges. Software is moving in the direction of being able to use it in more specialized ways. At some point in the not too distant future HDR will stop being a cool industry buzzword because it will just be part of the system. I would only be guessing, but I can imagine all of the pieces being in the market in the next 2 years.
The industry is always changing, things are moving very quickly now, but they are only going to move quicker...
Examples of this, Duel Core quad cpus are on the market, 64 bit OS's are on the market, architecture and os that is capable of accessing more than what was the standard high point of 2gig memory a year ago... 4gigs, 8gigs and more of memory on your system now is a real alternative. The OS will support, we just need the software manufacturers to catch up... Funny how we are all familiar with all of the little pieces to the puzzle :) I know you have been asking about a 64 bit architecture for TS in another thread.
That is my opinion here Jack, I am no expert, I know in the Photography forums, the video forums as well as the digital media guild I am a member of, all of these things are topic of conversation. I can see all of the individual pieces coming, so it is only natural to speculate on them being available to 3D as well as photographer's and video professionals equipment (what is the point of shooting hi rez HDR images and video if you can not edit it or display it on your computer monitor, TV, and 3D software.
I watched a video on YouTube a couple of weeks ago about how technology is presently doubling in power/information every 16 months... by 2030 it will be doing that every 72 hours... scary when you think about it. We are truly at the very infancy of the computer/information curve. Things are not even at the true beginning point some experts claim...
Before I shoot off on a rambling tangent way far from the basic topic of HDR pictures and creating them... I digress.
Very interseting topic though.
Rich |
Post by Jack Edwards // Jul 21, 2007, 1:53am
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
Thanks Rich. You're definitely more up on that side of things than I am. :) As far as my photography goes, it's mainly indoor animal photography. Basically the worst of all worlds: Low light, high speed, motion photography. ;) The new generation of DSLR cameras seem to handle it fairly well though. I can get pretty nice results now with just the camera and a good bounce flash.
I'm definitely right there with you on the 64-bit thing. I've been running into that pretty hard if I try to use large textures. Something I noticed you were posting about as well. Rendering with a high resolution HDR just isn't happening on a 32-bit system/software either.
Do you have an opinion on an optimum resolution for HDRs for rendering? I've noticed that some are as low as 340x200 pixels (!) but still seem to produce decent results if they have good color depth. Personally I think that's way too low to get sharp reflections, but until we go 64bit and afford the ram to match, practical compromises will still be needed.
Theory-wise I'd say projected pixel density per surface and clarity of shadows would be the main concern in a quality render. Things that would obviously be different render to render, but are there certain resolutions that you could say have produced your best/acceptable results in the majority of situations at a reasonable memory/time cost?
-Jack. |
Post by RichLevy // Jul 21, 2007, 3:53am
|
RichLevy
Total Posts: 1140
|
Thanks Rich. You're definitely more up on that side of things than I am. :) As far as my photography goes, it's mainly indoor animal photography. Basically the worst of all worlds: Low light, high speed, motion photography. ;) The new generation of DSLR cameras seem to handle it fairly well though. I can get pretty nice results now with just the camera and a good bounce flash.
I'm definitely right there with you on the 64-bit thing. I've been running into that pretty hard if I try to use large textures. Something I noticed you were posting about as well. Rendering with a high resolution HDR just isn't happening on a 32-bit system/software either.
Do you have an opinion on an optimum resolution for HDRs for rendering? I've noticed that some are as low as 340x200 pixels (!) but still seem to produce decent results if they have good color depth. Personally I think that's way too low to get sharp reflections, but until we go 64bit and afford the ram to match, practical compromises will still be needed.
Theory-wise I'd say projected pixel density per surface and clarity of shadows would be the main concern in a quality render. Things that would obviously be different render to render, but are there certain resolutions that you could say have produced your best/acceptable results in the majority of situations at a reasonable memory/time cost?
-Jack.
As far as HDR's for rendering, I have been able to work with 2K X 2K well enough, if you go any bigger things slow down fast. Though that was on my previous system, the newer one has much better hardware (core 2 quad cpu, 3gig ram, better graphics card, Windows Vista 32 bit, I'll stay here till software starts to convert over). But, I am not using my HDRs as light sources, they are backdrops and parts of the scene. Part of the reason I am putting so much effort into getting HDR panos into TS is to also use my photography for camermapping scenes, to create models from and to be backdrops.
As far as cheating an HDR, Photomatix does a decent job making a tone mapped image from a single jpeg image. If your camera supports it though, try to shoot raws. They are basically all of the information that is available from your sensor. If that is not available hopefully they have a 16bit tiff format for you to use. Your last choice would than be using the 8 bit jpegs. I have not looked into your opensource program yet. it may offer some reasonable cheats for 8bit images... like I said though... Raw, than 16 bit Tiff... than whatever :D
If you get a chance, I'd ask Dave Bokon, he has a video in the cources about making HDRs and putting them into TS 7.11. I learned some stuff with it about doing it, but it was during testing TS7.5 that I bought it, I do not have TS7.11 so I found there were too many changes in the early betas for me to get anything done with it.
Hope that is of some value... I hate sounding like I am a source of knowledge on this :D... much of what I am doing is trying to find a workflow for my pictures thru most of the software that I have.
rich |
|
