NIK in all its glory....incidentally easy controllable HDR

I've come to value "single frame HDR" ...can be dramatic or subtle for my hand held stuff going way back to Nikon-scanned Kodachromes, E4, my old 4X5 B&Ws and scans of family and historic prints and negs from the late 1800s.

 

The original, free Google NIK was great......rarely for theatrics...an additional/alternative beyond exposure and contrast to open up some images.

 

I usually see (previsualize) an inkjet print, color or B&W (including post-processing), when I make a shot. Doesn't involve chimping. More like sheet film than like roll film. Using Photoshop I can approximate what NIK does almost intuitively, and still rely on it..

 

The old Windows 10 machine was slow and the monitor wasn't adequate....so I bought a new Dell Core i5 and 26" Dell 26" "Ultrasharp" monitor (middle price versions..about $1100 total).

 

The original (free) NIK got lost in the switch-over...ouch...I'd come to love it. Researched some alternatives. After an initial mistake (ON 1's HDR might have been great for an Apple but wasn't for my Win 10) I paid actual money to DXO, the company that bought NIK. Works great, ultra fast on my new PC.

 

 

 

 

 

Free version is still available. Details here:

 

Is it still possible to get the free download version of the Nik Collection?

 

But if you are using DXO PL3, like I am, I use the latest version of NIK Collection that I purchased. You need to determine if you can access the free NIK collection directly from DXO PL3.

 

Make sure you check out all of the new and old webinars on DXO and NIK at DXOs website. They are all very good.

Edited October 8, 2020 by joseph_smith|3

And if you want to buy DXO or NIK, look for a discount. Usually discounts are offered if you attend and watch a DXO or NIK webinar. Dan Hughes has some forthcoming webinars on Color Efex Pro. He is an excellent presenter.

Single frame HDR? You mean there's a specific camera that's capturing "HDR" since DR is an attribute of that capture device?

Single frame HDR? You mean there's a specific camera that's capturing "HDR" since DR is an attribute of that capture device?

 

This refers to processing a single image to different levels of brightness and then compositing them, usually with tone mapping. I've never done it.

This refers to processing a single image to different levels of brightness and then compositing them, usually with tone mapping. I've never done it.

Still makes no sense to me as presented. I've done tone mapping. I routinely alter image brightness.

 

Description

High-dynamic-range imaging is a technique used in photographic imaging and films, and in ray-traced computer-generated imaging, to reproduce a greater range of luminosity than what is possible with standard digital imaging or photographic techniques.Wikipedia

single frame HDR is a commonly used way of referring to tone mapping. My guess is that NIK's use of the term is more appropriate than anything from Wikipedia.

 

.. NIK makes it easy to visualize (and print) all sorts of approaches to tone mapping (and HDR) on a continuous (slider) basis. I previsualize it often in otherwise dull-looking situations. More easily comprehended in use (via NIK for example). Doesn't usually appeal to people who want their prints to look like they came from a minilab..

Single frame HDR? You mean there's a specific camera that's capturing "HDR" since DR is an attribute of that capture device?

 

you'll find that various recent mirrorless cameras offer HDR an other "attributes" as settings beyond color, tone, contrast etc. Modern times.

Tone Mapping is well defined: Tone mapping - Wikipedia

NIK may be using marketing speak as they so often do.

 

Mirrorless cameras or otherwise have a fixed DR. Some have higher DR than others of course. I have no idea what anyone constitutes as "HDR".

There are no commercially available (consumer) cameras that can capture the DR anywhere close to what a human can see with a single capture of the scene.

Case in point:

http://www.lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/pscs3_rendering_image.pdf

 

Scene dynamic range is the key concept to understand. Scene dynamic range is simply the range of the brightness that is measured from the darkest element to the lightest. In the real world, this ratio can be very large. The specular highlight of a chrome car bumper under the noonday sun could emit a luminance of 50,000 cd/m2. A portion of the same car’s black tire deep in the shadow of its fender may only emit .5 cd/m2. This represents a scene dynamic range of 100,000:1.

I don't choose to squabble about "definitions." I ordinarily avoid Wikipedia because the act of researching is rewarding in itself.

 

fwiw I contribute actual money to Wikipedia because I find it a valuable tool, though often-enough a distraction...and it's often weaponized in one-upmanship.

 

"Marketing speak", which often reflects real consensus, is often more useful than Wikipedia.

 

The limitations of digital capture are well known, however still photography itself is only a hugely limited way of visualizing what we see when we view a subject in real time.

As the Chinese proverb says: "The first step towards genius is calling things by their proper name."

I have read more than a few posts on using HDR software (from different vendors) for processing a single image. Many cameras today produce a single image with enough information for HDR processors to render the image properly instead of using a traditional RAW processor.

I have read more than a few posts on using HDR software (from different vendors) for processing a single image.

Got any URLs of articles that explains this?

Mirrorless cameras or otherwise have a fixed DR.

Not really. When the sensor heats up, noise increases and dynamic range decreases.

Not really. When the sensor heats up, noise increases and dynamic range decreases.

Yes, that's true under such adverse and unrecommended conditions. DR is reduced with suboptimal exposure (have you yet come to an ability to do neither?). Do neither and the statement is correct; DR is an attribute of the sensor. Really.

Yes, that's true under such adverse and unrecommended conditions. DR is reduced with suboptimal exposure (have you yet come to an ability to do neither?). Do neither and the statement is correct; DR is an attribute of the sensor. Really.

 

Has almost nothing to do with the topic...a distraction.

"Facts are facts and will not disappear on account of your likes."

-Jawaharlal Nehru

Yes, that's true under such adverse and unrecommended conditions.

Sensors heat continuously in live view or video mode. Those are not adverse or unrecommended conditions, but normal operating modes. Sticking your head in the sand will not make this go away.

Sensors heat continuously in live view or video mode. Those are not adverse or unrecommended conditions, but normal operating modes.

Show us the data loss! With specific cameras and their resulting images. Provide facts.

Sensors heat continuously in live view or video mode. Those are not adverse or unrecommended conditions, but normal operating modes. Sticking your head in the sand will not make this go away.

 

Your readers should be aware, you've been searching for well over a year for data to back up this concept of not sensor heat but heat that produces image degradation without success both here and on Luminous Landscape. In fact, here on Photonet, this begin with pages of your inability to prove what one person with such cameras actually stated:

 

"What are you talking about? I own a Nikon DSLR kit and Fuji mirrorless. The Fuji kit is clearly smaller and lighter, and so were Sony and Olympus options I’ve used. A couple extra batteries in the bag hardly adds anything to the travel weight, and at no time have I noticed an overheating sensor causing image quality loss on either system - that one doesn’t make any sense at all. Whichever intern at DXO answers emails from random pixologists probably sent you a canned response then hit the junk filter."

andylynn, May 27, 2019

 

Then you went to LuLa asking this question, getting actual data that didn't back up your predetermined ideas:

 

"A while back I tried to get hard data on sensor heating in mirrorless cameras and resulting noise increase/dynamic range decrease. I contacted DxoMark and a German test house, but they simply said they don't let the sensor heat up when doing noise/DR testing.

So, from where I sit, there are only the dire warnings in user manuals and the "I don't see a problem" from mirrorless camera users.

Anybody aware of real data?"

« Last Edit: May 12, 2020, 05:10:02 pm by Frans Waterlander

When actual image data was provided by Jim Kasson, you of course ignored and dismissed it.

a7RII self-heating for long exposures

a7R self-heating for long exposures

GFX 100 self-heating read noise and EDR

Sony a7RIV self-heating read noise changes

 

Sensors heat continuously in live view or video mode. Those are not adverse or unrecommended conditions, but normal operating modes. Sticking your head in the sand will not make this go away.

No one said there is no heat, YOU told us there's enough heat to degreed an image and it's DR; without any proof while asking others to show you this concept.

Take your own head out of the sand and again, show us proof of the above image degradation from sensor heat you yourself have asked others to provide that you've never accepted when done so, from Jim or Andy or others.

Here are some links about using HDR software for single image processing:

 

Integrating Aurora HDR into your photo editing workflow | Photofocus

 

Single image HDR: The sundae technique | Photofocus

 

How to Make an HDR Image from a Single RAW File via @wearemacphun

 

HDR with a Single Exposure.

Here are some links about using HDR software for single image processing:

 

Integrating Aurora HDR into your photo editing workflow | Photofocus

Single image HDR: The sundae technique | Photofocus

How to Make an HDR Image from a Single RAW File via @wearemacphun

HDR with a Single Exposure.

 

Thanks, I looked over all three, and none state anything I've asked about in terms of exactly 'what is a single capture HDR'?

 

Let's say we have a camera with a known DR of 8 stops. We have a scene with 10 stops. HDR and tone mapping with multiple exposures would allow us to capture all 10 stops and produce a final rendering with all that DR. This isn't HDR from a single raw. The camera may have 8 stops or 12 stops or more of DR from a single capture. NO one has stated what HDR implies (how many stops in one capture?).

 

Note what the 3rd URL states:

"An HDR photo is that which is created by blending in two or more images, taken at different exposure settings, so that the result is a well-balanced and highly detailed picture. This, of course, requires you to take multiple images which may not always be possible."

Note what the 4th URL states:

"Normally, we create HDR images from a blend of three or more different exposures of the same scene. The settings chosen for the three exposures effectively tell the camera to concentrate just on the shadows or just on the highlights during each shot.

Because the camera can’t capture all the detail in the highlight and shadows in a single shot, the HDR results you’ll get when processing one image with Photomatix won’t give you as good a result as when you’re mixing information from bracketed shots."

HDR results you’ll get when processing one image with Photomatix is HDR because????

 

Every article above that talks of HDR from a single capture is simply talking about differing tools to render brightness and other tone to the final image. NONE alter or increase the DR of the capture. They can't. And that's my point.

The OP talked of single capture HDR (Single frame HDR?) so my question was, what's that mean? Define HDR (how many stops?) or any camera captures HDR? Kind sounds nonsensical to me. Any mapping of tone/brightness/contrast from a raw is HDR processing? If so, all I need is any raw converter.

None of the URL's explain anything about what Single frame HDR is, other than there IS HDR using multiple exposures to blend more DR to one image OR some kind of editing on one image to alter brightness/tone/contrast so that IS HDR. I think that's rubbish. But I have an open mind too. So what is Single frame HDR? Specific definitions that define the High part of the DR of which a single capture is fixed (in my scenario, 8 stops). Could be more but what exactly is HDR in one capture? The result of a well-balanced and highly detailed picture is HDR? Really?

No one said there is no heat, YOU told us there's enough heat to degreed an image and it's DR; without any proof while asking others to show you this concept.

Take your own head out of the sand and again, show us proof of the above image degradation from sensor heat you yourself have asked others to provide that you've never accepted when done so, from Jim or Andy or others.

I did not ignore Jim Kasson's data, but pointed out that it did not cover video mode or prolonged live view use. There are oodles of reports of overheating cameras and manufacturers warn about it in their user manuals all the time. However, what is lacking is hard measurement data and that's what I'm still after. Nobody that I'm aware of has this data or doesn't want to go public with it.

I did not ignore Jim Kasson's data, but pointed out that it did not cover video mode or prolonged live view use.

Dismissed, and didn't accept.

There are oodles of reports of overheating cameras and manufacturers warn about it in their user manuals all the time.

Yes, that's true under such adverse and unrecommended conditions. You dismissed that fact too when I outlined this earlier as I expected you would.

However, what is lacking is hard measurement data and that's what I'm still after. Nobody that I'm aware of has this data or doesn't want to go public with it

Data exists that you can't accept, while your belief expressed about image degradation, and proof if it, you still haven't provided when asked, because you haven't ever tested this, have not seen or have such data. Which is why in both sets of posts, virtually no one took you seriously, certainly not Jim who has produced actual testing.

Bottom line, the last person anyone here should be listening to about reduced DR, image degradation due to sensor heat is you sir. You're the fellow asking about it and then opining about it, without ANY data. :p

Edited October 11, 2020 by digitaldog

Nobody that I'm aware of has this data or doesn't want to go public with it.

Andrew, if you know of any source for this data, then share your wisdom with us. On the other hand, there are countless reports of camera overheating and user manuals for DSLRs with live view and/or video mode and mirrorless cameras warn about overheating and/or image quality degradation because of it.

You want me to provide the data when I'm asking for it? That's rich. No, I don't have neither the cameras nor the extensive equipment to run the tests and the test houses that have the capabilities I contacted agreed that image quality degradation will occur, but said they don't test for it.