http://www.sovietmontage.com/2010/09/09/hdr-video-a-reality/
interesting. no rly.
The people portion was definitely interesting. Looks almost cel-shaded.
Ah, so that's what it is. I've got a friend that shoots exclusive in that kind of format, I've been trying to figure out WTF he's been doing and just how the hell he does it. I still don't understand the process, but at least now I can put a name to it.
One of us is confused about the definition of "underexposed" and "overexposed."
Try not to overthink it =)
The way I've always interpreted it, underexposed = darker vs. overexposed = lighter.
Or, cute girl with a long coat on - underexposed vs. Stormy naked = way the freakin' hell overexposed :oof: :yak:
:eyebleach: :eyebleach: :eyebleach: :eyebleach: :eyebleach: :eyebleach: :eyebleach:
Originally posted by: Thad The way I've always interpreted it, underexposed = darker vs. overexposed = lighter.
Indeed. An underexposed photo will be too dark. An overexposed photo will be too light/blown out. They've just got them mis-labled in their little video. No biggie.
It's interesting the way the line between 'still' cameras and 'movie' cameras is disappearing. I read that they filmed an episode of House with Canon (I think) SLRs.
edit// Here it is. It is, in fact, the exact same camera, the Canon 5D MkII.
There is something I really dislike about the "High Pass" like glow that you get with most HDR - I think it has a very negative impact on most photos.
I really like the effect used when the guy was talking.
Originally posted by: blacksanta_69 There is something I really dislike about the "High Pass" like glow that you get with most HDR - I think it has a very negative impact on most photos.
absolutely, the fucking term HDR has been coopted by photgraphers acheiving a filtered effect which is somehow popular along with over-saturation these days... lots of folks just ruining what might otherwise be great photos
It's a tool, like any other. There are instances where it is the right tool, and many where it is not. The misuse of it as a style (regardless of it's appropriateness for the task) is what I find problematic. Also the assumption that HDR'ing a boring photo will somehow make it into an interesting one. Wrongo - now it's just an HDR boring photo.
Interesting that there is a technique available for video. There are some instances where that will be helpful.
that's very cool.
What rd said.
Part of the beauty of photography and film is knowing where/what to expose for.
Plus the beauty of digital photography means that no actual image is destroyed in the process of making one. Someone still has the RAW files etc of it before being edited into that.
HDR is the velvet Elvis painting of digital art.
It's still fun to see it accomplished in video.
I actually prefer HDR when it's done "wrong", giving a line illustration effect to things. Video HDR is a neato technical trick but overall I'll take filmic any day.
Originally posted by: arigato I actually prefer HDR when it's done "wrong", giving a line illustration effect to things.This.
When it's done right, it's pretty damn nifty. I screwed around some with a PS tut on the effect, got some interesting results but nothing quite like actual HDR. This one shot though, I took a photo of some dude in a native american head-dress that he was wearing for halloween a couple years back, it was one of the most random, un-aimed or pre-planned instant shots I've ever taken, and it's absolutely amazing even in it's raw unedited state. After applying the effect, the lines and shapes and feathers are even more defined and incredible.
So it appears the HDR effect I found works best on images with lots of crisp, sharp detail. I tried it with some jpg images off my flickr gallery and it mostly just highlighted the artifacts in the shadows, which looked like shit wiped on Stormy's ass by the time it was finished. Apparently it's best applied to source imagery.
lots of good comments here... I must keep Rogue_D's and Persisto's in mind next time my brother tries pimping his Topaz HDR effects