Now that looks really weird:
http://laughingsquid.com/nasa-films-a-rocket-booster-test-in-never-before-seen-detail/
http://laughingsquid.com/nasa-films-a-rocket-booster-test-in-never-before-seen-detail/
HDR Rocket video
- Thread starter Metryq
- Start date
Nice chart, Spctre. Since vision is in the brain and not just the eye, I think the human range may be greater. That is, we build up a gestalt of our environment and are still "aware" of the full "360" even though we may not be looking at all of it directly. For example, when looking at a panorama that can be taken in at a glance, a slight turn of the head might move from raw sunlight to a darkened room or cave, thus prompting changes in the iris. Yet the mental picture of the energy of the scene is still there—in mind, but also by the heat felt on the skin, the sounds of the environment around us, etc.
There are "high dynamic range" displays, combining LCD and LED technology, as well as other techniques. Yet "HDR" can also be viewed on a common display, like the typical home computer monitor. In that case, what is called "HDR" is really an artfully compressed single image showing more detail than the human eye or a single photo can capture—like the rocket engine video.
Honestly, I'm not a fan of extremely wide dynamic range in presentation media—like movie theaters (or even TV shows) that make your ears bleed on "dramatic" music or sound effects. A little boost can bring a scene alive, but too many mixers overdo it for my taste. Even now, a cinema can span a light-to-dark range that can be uncomfortable. (I remember watching The Hunt For Red October in the cinema, and the change between subs at depth and afternoon sunlight was jarring.)
The best use of HDR photography is in 3D and other composite imaging. "Light probes" can provide a full environment for 3D rendering. And because the multi-layered probe preserves the energy of the scene, motion blur looks more realistic. For example, without HDR a blur might average lights and darks together. In real photography, brighter areas tend to overwhelm the darker areas in a blur—and HDR helps in that case.
Still, I am fascinated by any photography that reaches beyond the human visible range. Thermographic cameras are now dropping enough in price to be accessible to the hobbyist, and many photographers modify their old DSLRs for infrared photography.
There are "high dynamic range" displays, combining LCD and LED technology, as well as other techniques. Yet "HDR" can also be viewed on a common display, like the typical home computer monitor. In that case, what is called "HDR" is really an artfully compressed single image showing more detail than the human eye or a single photo can capture—like the rocket engine video.
Honestly, I'm not a fan of extremely wide dynamic range in presentation media—like movie theaters (or even TV shows) that make your ears bleed on "dramatic" music or sound effects. A little boost can bring a scene alive, but too many mixers overdo it for my taste. Even now, a cinema can span a light-to-dark range that can be uncomfortable. (I remember watching The Hunt For Red October in the cinema, and the change between subs at depth and afternoon sunlight was jarring.)
The best use of HDR photography is in 3D and other composite imaging. "Light probes" can provide a full environment for 3D rendering. And because the multi-layered probe preserves the energy of the scene, motion blur looks more realistic. For example, without HDR a blur might average lights and darks together. In real photography, brighter areas tend to overwhelm the darker areas in a blur—and HDR helps in that case.
Still, I am fascinated by any photography that reaches beyond the human visible range. Thermographic cameras are now dropping enough in price to be accessible to the hobbyist, and many photographers modify their old DSLRs for infrared photography.
Similar threads
