Dual 5dii = HDR video

<p>Is HDR the next 3d? (in film fads)<br>

http://vimeo.com/14821961</p>

<p>If there was ever an application for HDR that appeals to me, video is it :)</p>

<p>Interesting, thanks for the post.</p>

<p>That looks fugly, but the idea is neat. They need to improve the HDR algorithm to make it look more realistic. Instead of having it look like candy use the increased DR to improve the shot.</p>

<p>Isn't there an new I-Phone that can take 3 exposure bracketed shots and blend them on the fly?</p>

<p>The method used above involves 2 "duct taped" Canon 5DII, but if it is feasible and useful, maybe dual sensor cameras will become the norm?</p>

<p><em>> 2 "duct taped" Canon 5DII</em></p>

<p>According to <a href="http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/09/creepy-hdr-video-shot-with-two-dslrs/">http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/09/creepy-hdr-video-shot-with-two-dslrs/</a> hardly just "duct taped."<br>

..."<em>using a beam-splitter"...</em><br>

Too bad that there are no real details on post but someone will soon crack this part open, too, IMO.</p>

<p>A beam splitter is what is used in high-end 3D rigs. Basically, it is a one way mirror, only you use it at an angle, so light passes through to one camera, and down to another.</p>

<p>After seeing this, I kind of want to build one. You can buy it for about 3k, but looking at the parts needed, bet I could build it for under 1k.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>maybe dual sensor cameras will become the norm?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You do not need two sensors for HDR. HDR currently uses several differently exposed images to increase bit-depth of the image. Instead you could directly have sensors that support larger bit depths. Then in a second step this larger bit depth is mapped to a lower bit depth that can be displayed on a screen. This mapping is not linear, instead dark areas are made to look brighter and bright areas made to look darker. And this is where the magic lies, that decides if the result looks good or just like fake. There is no need to have severals sensors (from a signal processing point I think it would even make things worse) and maybe even the bit depth of current mid to high end models was sufficient just if there was the "right" HDR postprocessing.</p>

<p>this awful and if you think it's awesome you're awful</p>

<p>cant the RED camera shoot like 24 fps in raw format? so you just batch process a 0,+2, -2 for each frame?</p>

<p>It's just another tool. And now that it's known to be available, it's going to get used by skilled and unskilled alike. It will also be used "artistically" to make imagery that you think is "awful" but the maker thought was "awesome".<br>

It's still better to use multiple separate images for HDR. The actual exposure is still always limited to its functional dynamic range, and adjustment in post only just approximates the effect of ISO and exposure changes.<br>

The actual blending method also makes a big difference. That video uses a muddy blending method and so the results are still not very polished.</p>