C1 22 HDR
What were the shortcomings :
1. No ghost elemination 2. when using more the 4 or 5 takes there are artefacs, colourinconstenci. 3.the resulting HDR always is to bright, even with the autoadjust
enabled.4. almost no Highlightrecovery possible.
I am talking about HDR with more then 3 frames. Working with Iindustrial or Architec.
Projekts one ends up easy with more then 5 takes . A big hall heavy loaded with equipment and just available light and also subjects outside big windows to capture are required, brings you up to e.g 17 takes.
C1 tells you to get some 3 takes. For that I dont need a HDR SW. My Cameras are with a EV span 12 to 14 EV. So I am better off with a single frame.
If you manage to get an HDR merged with more the 3 frames out of the present voersion, a hell of a lot of tweaking is necessary to get a decent result.Last month Karl Pfeiffer and David made a video introducing Pano and HDR with C1 22 from some coastline in South UK. And as far as I could see they used Phase One Aparatus.
When I learned that C1 ist coming around with version 22 with a HDR feature I believed in some very Prof-like . WoW, Phase One . Industrial shooting and so on . I participated in their Betat-Testing and made the reports on exactly the flaws wich I found now in the final version.
No Eye was looking nor an Ear listening.
Since I believed that C1 was capable to come out wih a HDR Tool for serious HDR works,
I bougth version 22 without hesitating .But never the less, there as that tale....Hope is the last item to die...I am shure C1 will deliver a usable HDR tool also for professional jobs..
May take some tome .Hopefully not for ever.
After all this , what I am waiting for hence on is this :that somebody will tell me here; that I will get happy with this HDR Tool , just using cameras with a less (adequate) EV span.
-
How is this an "issue with the new forum"?
0 -
I dont know. You tell us.
-1 -
Uwe,
The release notes have always included the recommendation, for HDR merging, to try to avoid using more than 3 images and make the exposures as 0, -2 and +2 ensuring that no image has significant areas of over exposure.
Based on that it seemed clear to me that this first release would be unlikely to produce extreme results with more the 3 images and so it proved.
That's fine although I suspect that, for my equipment, I could probably achieve 90% of the HDR processing I need using a single file and the HDR tool. So no need to get complicated.
I would guess that the developers, if they are planning to extend the functionality in the future, would be aware of the needs of architectural photographer like yourself and may well have plans to extend the capabilities of the HDR facility at some point once general acceptance has been established for a less demanding user base.
I would suggest posting your comments in the "Feature Request" section of the forum. However, from what you have written above I understand that you have already made the suggestions during the beta testing period.
It seems clear that C1 has decided to launch the functionality with a "make it very simple" philosophy. That may not be anywhere near the approach that users like yourself with, presumably, years of working with some of the long-lived applications that are available already, would have preferred.
Indeed it's not really what I expected either.
However, in many ways it does what it sets out to do very well and if the concept can be enhanced without forcing users to become expert with a mass of controls to learn and the skills to deploy them, I think the results could be excellent and efficient.
On the other hand, I doubt that self-developing something that competes with existing market-leading specialist applications would be commercially wise for a first release even if to do so would be feasible and affordable. Buying an existing product and embedding it might be an option but would it be commercially sensible?
The Feature Request thread would be a useful way to promote your requirements ideas publically and encourage discussion and support for your preferred future development direction.
0 -
SFA said
The release notes have always included the recommendation, for HDR merging, to try to avoid using more than 3 images and make the exposures as 0, -2 and +2 ensuring that no image has significant areas of over exposure.
===
That is not what the release notes say, they say:
Shooting optimally for HDR
When shooting for HDR merge, consider following these principles for optimal results:- Shoot 3 images bracketed with 2.0 EV between each image
- Use a tripod to avoid significant differences between the images
- Make sure that the brightest image has details in the shadows and that the darkest image does not have any burned out highlights
To SFA:
It does not say " ensuring that no image has significant areas of over exposure."
Any it does not say you can only use +2, 0, -2
My comments:
I am not asking for a feature, just what was supposed to be in the release. I saw the -2 0 +2 but that was a suggestion (-1 0 +1 should be fine as long as all the good parts are there in one of the 3 files), anyway I took these shots in November in Banff and I am not going back there for a while.
I did not see any mention that no input file should have significant areas of over exposure.
I opened a case an uploaded the files.
So far none of the merges I tried have worked. I expect the merge to work as well as Aurora or Affinity Photo which is only $59.00. not too much to ask IMO. Ghost removal is very useful sometimes but I can wait for that but I don't want to have to pay for that (in the next release) as far as I am concerned that is a 22 feature.
0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
4 comments