neccesary de ghosting.
allthough merging images with moving water,clouds, people. is difficult due to the technical issues encountered, i believe most of these issues can be overcome, by introducing, de ghosting software in with the new HDR . its sad that you have gone to all that trouble to give us users a good upgrade, but mist the crucial ingredient, to make the HDR section useable. after all the sky and water are the areas against the land that need a large high dynamic range. Please give us DE GHOSTING in with the HDR thanks.
-
Rob,
I agree.
HOWEVER when I look at the images I have used and blended, both panoramas and HDR with moving content. I have found very few ghosting problems. Really VERY few unless I overload the process with more than a required number of files at a blending point on a Panorama.
Amazing considering all the shots have been handheld. Or at least I think so.
On the HDR files I have studied leafless tree branches where they are affected by wind but almost aligned can look a bit messy at 100% but for general use they are not too bad really. Not so different to how one would see them if walking by at the time.
So I agree but have been surprised that, for the shots I have worked with, the results have been much less ghost troubled than I expected. Nothing that could not be addressed, if necessary, when post-processing the new "RAW" file that is produced.
So there may be some hope if further improving the processing to the point where de ghosting is not required - and in my opinion that would be an even better outcome.
0 -
To whom it might be interesting: According to Paul Reiffer, ambassador of C1 if I am informed correctly (but he does not have a disclaimer in his YT video), "deghosting invents things which are not there" and hence is questionable if this should be implemented, something like that he said in one of his videos (about v22). Apart from that not a bad video, but hey, I think this guy is trying to sell C1 no matter what.
Look at videos from Todd Dominey for a seemingly better balanced assessment.
0 -
BeO,
Actually I think he is correct in many de-ghosting situations.
Whether that is important is a different discussion thread.
Photography is an interesting philosophical medium.
For much of its existence, it has been producing interpretations rather than fact. Mainly because it was largely constrained to Monochrome reproduction.
More recently the news media, having been pinned down by some interesting "interpretations" of images in news feeds, has got itself tied up in a knot about almost any form of editing, including eliminating unimportant (to the message of the image) clutter even if the removal made for a marginally stronger and more presentable image without compromising anything in moral terms.
the C1 way seems strongly aligned with that philosophy.
Meanwhile, TV and the movies and others have headed off down the CGI - "if it don't exist, make it up" path, almost to t the point where there might soon be little point in trying to create photos because CGI and AI can make something photorealistic and deliver it to your device without the need to travel and kill the planet just to get a "shot" that will then need enhancing to CGI levels using whichever "editor" allows one to come closest to "what one saw with one's eyes".
25 years ago a Security Guard (at a company I was working with at the time), who was also an occasional wedding photographer and photographer's assistant, showed me an image of a wedding he had attended where the happy couple had hired a chimney sweep and his horse and cart as part of the ceremony. Something to do with"good luck", "Health" and "happiness" if there was a Sweep at the wedding apparently.
The Sweep, having been paid well for his attendance, made sure he was in every shot. Much to the annoyance of the happy couple and their snapper.
The Snapper then employed the services of a Photoshop expert (a relatively new profession back then) to eliminate the Sweep from all of the shots thus leaving the happy couple with a choice of "with sweep" or "without sweep" images.
There was nothing morally honest about the results but at least the hedge that was cloned to remove the sweep and his horse and cart was indeed part of the images and not something imported from a CGI-generated source.
The question may be - how far are people prepared to allow "made-up stuff" to appear in their personal artistic efforts? How real does "real" have to be?
If it can purely be considered as "digital art" .... what is the point of photography other than as seed data on which AI can be trained to generate images that humans think they like?
De-ghosting seems to me to be similar but not exactly the same as cloning and, in part, healing but deployed with a slightly different purpose.
Is that right or wrong? I don't know. It depends on what is created.
I think the point that Reiffer was making is that AI, or Healing and to some extent cloning (except that cloning is typically human-guided) is not trying to choose between a number of possible options but is more likely to be deployed to simply make something the seems to fit the requirement whether it bears any relationship or not to content at the time.
Nothing new to photography. There are plenty of examples all the way back to the dawn of photographic time where an image has been manipulated to "disappear" a person or change the context of a location, etc.
These days it is much easier. But take things far enough and it could be easier still.
I think the typical question about or request for "de-ghosting" is to allow a "choice" from competing (overlapping) data sources.
But that may not be a realistic request. Simply creating something that eliminates the need to work to modify existing content options is more likely to be the implemented solution. Creative cloning. "We will try to apply cloning but if that fails we will just add something that will look nice." If not nice, then suitable. If not suitable, then it offers a message ...." . Or something.
So how much of the image do we allow to be replaced?
Just a few thoughts.
0 -
So how much of the image do we allow to be replaced?
Image compositing should be disallowed, and we should ban long exposures and ND filters as it can removes people and moving objects from a scene, showing a biased or untrue image of reality. Ban for everyone, not only for news and documentary photographers, as the existence of such features or filters could be misused by them.
Irony aside, we are talking about multiple occurences of identical objects which don't align over each other in blended HDRs or panos, because of their moving nature. Without any tricks, many HDRs or panos would look like beep.
And even if something is removed completely, removing something isn't inventing something which hasn't been there. Though it skews reality, as any photograph or painting does.
It is ok if such a feature is not included in a first release, but PR's statement is an absurd excuse from a disguised C1 salesman. I don't believe that he restricts himself to only shooting HDR images of scences without moving subjects out of ethical reasons (so that he doesn't "invent "something), that's pure beep, he probably doesn't shoot HDRs at all because he has a Phase One camera with an (assumingly) high enough DR.
Anyway, if C1 gets these features right, having HDRs and panos as linear DNGs would be a big advantage for me.
0 -
Well, the de-ghosting issue, at least in terms of removal, has a potential correction via heal and clone activity.
Should one wish to retain the ghost in its original completeness (assuming it is complete in at least one image) that's probably NOT a heal and clone action.
So ultimately one would need to provide total control over stitching and blending to be able to offer solutions for all users. Traditional "Old School" products style.
Nothing like the modern-day "fix it in the phone" type expectation.
Are they all based on "find a suitable substitute content in our on-line library and use that?" approach? I understand that many are or will be.
In which case ... no need to take the photo - just order up a composite image from Google or Amazon! As described to your favourite smart-speaker's persona.
;)
However, I thought the context of his comment was more from the point of view that with automated de-ghosting you get content delivered over which you have no control - so no choice whether auto deleted or auto retained. And at the extreme an app might simply swap out an entire Sky. (That would be a great way to fix issues with night sky shots for example!)
I fully agree with your last line.
0 -
For now, it's just a matter of waiting.
In the beta I reported a lot of bugs, the HDR artifact bug with moving objects like water is one of them.
And that you can not use HDR with layers properly.
I think that until the next update many bugs are fixed.
0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
6 comments