|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/5/2008
|
Thanks a bunch for the detailed info, Harry! Good stuff to know for further reading and understanding about the step of conversion of the already taken image (at whatever EV) to electronic format using *again* a variable range of EV.
It is exactly this that I can't see the usefulness of, since this is like additionaly varying the already exposed film/slide, whose amount of information is already *fixed* by the exposure's EV. I don't see see how this (perhaps) might introduce some additional and even finer sequence of EV steps, but as already said I must take a further read.
To me it seems now like trying to fake the number of real exposures from, say, 7 (EV -3 to 3 at steps of 1) to 7*7 (each real exposure electronically "re-taken" at an additional variational range of EV - 3 to 3 at steps of 1.) I understand that it would be impossible to make 49 real exposures from EV -3 to 3 at steps of... 0.14 (!) since no system I know of allows for such a fine(st) dinstinguishing between EV values, expept of course for very long exposures with a finest adjustment of exposure times. But, thinking of an already taken image as some kind of a "representant" of reality, out of which we could re-introduce and additional finer range of different exposures by converting it to electronic format using many different EV values... that's wishful thinking to me. You can't get more information from an already fixed amount of information no matter what you do and no matter how you code that information - for this is exactly what you do when you convert an already exposed film frame to electronic format using many different EV values. This is elementary mathematics. An image taken at EV -3 and converted to digital format at EV 0 is the same as the image taken originally at EV -3. An image taken at EV -3 and then converted to digital at EV +1 is way not the same like an image taken at EV -3+4*1/7.
Thanks a lot also for the information about photo accute. I'll try that and see if it is really as good as they describe. One thing is sure though: Any kind of "raising" resolution *after* the real shot is only a fake! It might look good sometimes, but how do you introduce the additional pixels between two adjucent pixels of a given resolution? This is like thinking that a pixel between a white and a black one must have been 50% grey in reality. But it could have been just about anything else too.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
Wolf Zorrito
{K:78768} 7/30/2008
|
oh, something new !
http://www.photoacute.com/studio/index.html
This will allow stacking images at the same settings, you can download a demo version !.
|
|
|
|
|
Wolf Zorrito
{K:78768} 7/30/2008
|
======================================
Photo 1 @ EV -3 film
Convert to electronic format using EV -3 to + 3 camera
Save result as EV -3
Photo 2 @ EV -2
Convert to electronic format using EV -3 to + 3
camera
Save result as EV -2
Photo 2 @ EV -1
Convert to electronic format using EV -3 to + 3 camera
Save result as EV -1
etc
THEN make endresult from electronic versions of -3 to + 3
==========================================
But I think if you make first ONE photo only and scan them in on the digitizer EV -3 to + 3 result will be sufficient ...... :-)
Jassou
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 7/30/2008
|
Wait, wait... The EV range from -3 to +3 is for the captures themselves, OK? Then we scan *each* of the several captures also several times, if I understood you right. And so... all scans of *each* individual capture are done with the same scanning settings?
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Wolf Zorrito
{K:78768} 7/29/2008
|
Suggest f/20 aperture, use EV -3 to +3 for best quality 'hdr'. Comine it in Photoshop Automate to HDR/ Good luck !
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 7/29/2008
|
"scanning each frame 4 to 6 times will incraese definition and reduce noise"
All scans with the same adjustments?
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Wolf Zorrito
{K:78768} 7/28/2008
|
Scanning is the weakest link so scanning each frame 4 to 6 times will incraese definition and reduce noise. And obtain the max dynamic range. I think that is already the near the max you can get
so smaller steps dont help anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 7/28/2008
|
I scanned each of them only once, so that must be my problem. Thanks a lot, Harry!
Still I don't understand the multiple scanning exactly. Does it have to do with a further refinement of the already available EVs? In order to make the available "stops" even more and the steps even finer between them? If so (only if), then why not getting directly more shots with a progression of stops at +1/3 or even less at a time? Except of course of the much longer time that it takes, I can't see any difference. Actually the "real" stops must be more effective than the "artificial" ones due to scanning. Or what I miss?
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Wolf Zorrito
{K:78768} 7/27/2008
|
No, 3 to 4 should do already something, it is the conversion from slide to digital where your weak link is here.
Try again with 5 film exposures, scan in each exposure 4 to 6 times, use stacking or SLiDE(tm). And then at the end cmbine it all to HDR.
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 7/27/2008
|
Well, I did that some times before, Harry, but only with 2-3 shots in the range -1 ... +1. That was too few shots, I guess. So, thanks a lot for the very useful input!
Still, SLiDE(C) would be several shots but on the *same* frame of film. And as it is doing so much alone with camera/lens it fascinates me. The controlled HDR process right on camera... imagine that!!!
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Wolf Zorrito
{K:78768} 7/26/2008
|
EZ,
-just make 4 - 6 shots with your analog camera on a tripod, EV from -3 .. + 2
-then convert them in digital and do the HDR process.
-best of 2 worlds !
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 7/25/2008
|
You are now a....? A....? A bankeeeeeeer! ;-)
Come on now buddy, there *is* potential in your SLiDE(C). Perhaps a much much better way than my (fruitless) search for some extra-ultra-high dynamics film. BTW, the film of video cassettes has a much higher dynamics range. I had a discussion with Avi about its possible usage for images already. Unfortunately it is quite hard to use that film for a "normal" SLR. But if we could find a way to control the screening of the individual shots... I must get my head-gear running for that!
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Wolf Zorrito
{K:78768} 7/24/2008
|
OK, I cheated, but then i am now a ...... ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 7/24/2008
|
No! It should be already written exactly as clearly in your about, and definitely *not* after my questioning.
We know how many people are going to take that "about" for valid? And we know what happens when misconception assumes control? Then it's something like "Believe and don't ask", and we of course are too tired of all that, aren't we? Or else what sense does it make to complain about "living in the middle ages"? If we support it ourselves we don't have absolutely any right to complain about it, or do we?
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Wolf Zorrito
{K:78768} 7/23/2008
|
Yes, I see it written clearly !
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 7/23/2008
|
Then name it also SLiDE(C) in the about, Harry.I can't see in your mind, I can only read what you write, ey?
SLiDE(C)... let's see what we can get with that.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Wolf Zorrito
{K:78768} 7/22/2008
|
You dont got it right but it is not HDR but SLiDE(C) technique.
Jassou !
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 7/22/2008
|
And thus, if I really got you right, this wasn't really HDR.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Wolf Zorrito
{K:78768} 7/21/2008
|
Indeed i made 5 sigle exposure of one slide :-)
Smart banker ;-) !
|
|
|
|
Stan Ciszek
{K:56854} 7/20/2008
|
Amazing capture,Harry.
Congrats,
Cheers,
Stan.
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 7/20/2008
|
I find the reddish overall look complemented by some few strokes of dark green very absorbing in such a "linear" geometry, Harry! The far details got a bit softened, which adds something to the mood - like those shines on the late afternoon that make images look as soft as the light is.
What do you mean with "5 separate exposures from a single slide"? Did you exposed the same slide five times, or do I miss your point?
Cheeers!
Nick
|
|
0 
