Slashdot Mirror
HDR Video a Reality
akaru writes "Using common DSLR cameras, some creative individuals have created an example of true HDR video. Instead of pseudo-HDR, they actually used multiple cameras and a beam splitter to record simultaneous video streams, and composited them together in post. Looks very intriguing."
That's great and all but when do I get a camera that also shoots a depth map?
HDR
Focus Stacking
Panoramic Stitching
All in the camera, all 1-button easy to use, and all at once.
The trumping technology to follow: 3D-HDR Video!!
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
C&P from the linked page (assuming a /.'ing imminent)
HDR demo @ http://vimeo.com/14821961
Press Release:
HDR Video A Reality
Soviet Montage Productions releases information on the first true High Dynamic Range (HDR) video using DSLRs
San Francisco, CA, September 9, 2010: Soviet Montage Productions demonstrated today the first true HDR video sourced from multiple exposures. Unlike HDR timelapse videos that only capture a few frames per minute, true HDR video can capture 24 or more frames per second of multiple exposure footage. Using common DSLRs, the team was able to composite multiple HD video streams into a single video with an exposure gamut much greater than any on the market today. They are currently using this technology to produce an upcoming film.
Benefits of Motion HDR
HDR imaging is an effect achieved by taking multiple disparate exposures of a subject and combining them to create images of a higher exposure range. It is an increasingly popular technique for still photography, so much so that it has recently been deployed as a native application on Apple’s iPhone. Until now, however, the technique was too intensive and complex for motion. Soviet Montage Productions believes they have solved the issue with a method that produces stunning–and affordable–true HDR for film and video.
The merits of true HDR video are various. The most obvious benefit is having an exposure variation in a scene that more closely matches the human eye–think of filming your friend with a sunset at his or her back, your friend’s face being as perfectly captured as the landscape behind them. HDR video also has the advantage of reduced lighting needs. Finally, the creative control of multiple exposures, including multiple focus points and color control, is unparalleled with true HDR video.
“I believe HDR will give filmmakers greater flexibility not only in the effects they can create but also in the environments they can shoot in” said Alaric Cole, one of the members of the production team, “undoubtedly, it will become a commonplace technique in the near future. ”
Contact:
Michael Safai
Soviet Montage
201 Spear Street #1100
San Francisco, CA 94105
1 415 489 0437
mike@sovietmontage.com
Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
Can anyone give a brief rundown on what HDR is? I know it stands for "high dynamic range", but as someone who knows nothing about photography, it means nothing to me. What it has to do with overexposure/underexposure (to which the video refers)? Why is it harder to do with video than still images?
I've been a long-time fan of HDR photography, and was just thinking about ways that HDR could be implementing in video camcorders as well. Personally I'd like to see a correctly-exposed stream mixed in with the other two, as is common in photography, but even without that the effect is pretty darn cool.
By the way, in case any camcorder manufacturers are watching, consider this idea: make a video camera with three (or more) times the required number of sensors for the resolution you want to record at. Set the logic in the device up to use three unique sets of sensors inside to pick up three different sets of images, at differing exposure settings. Then have them saved separately so that they can be integrated later on for various editing effects - or have a mode where they are integrated on-the-fly for easier use by non-professionals. I imagine it would be expensive to make such a complex sensor and camera, but it might be easier to manage than multiple cameras as the folks in the article did.
William George
Just in case anyone was wondering. It would be nice if editors would get into the habit of making sure that the front page summaries had a definition of these TLA's in at least 10% of the posted articles. TLS == three letter acronym, by the way.
Wasn't the first HDR video camera back in 1993? Granted, they called it Adaptive Sensitivity back then.
I had my first foray into HDR still photography recently and I have to say I'm very very impressed with the results. Certain night-time scenes look absolutely stunning using 4-5 exposures. Here's some shots by a friend of a friend: http://roache7.deviantart.com/gallery/.
I have an EOS 550D (aka T2i) and the raw still format capture 14 bit per channel, so it sould be also available for video mode, even if it requires a custom format.
In the video, there is a part showing a man talking, and eventually he waves his arms around. At that point, you can see some parts of the picture become brighter near his arms- clearly not shadows, so it must be an artifact of the HDR processing. Anyone care to explain what might cause this, or how it might be addressed? I don't know much about HDR so I wouldn't have a clue, but some insight into the technical stuff behind the process would be interesting (and help people like me better learn and appreciate HDR).
My webcomic
already slashdotted. who knew.
first shot. isn't the dark part (left) underexposed and the bright (right) part overexposed?
It really makes you think...
The results are beautiful, in my opinion. HDR looks great when done with restraint. I've even used HDR for work a few times, such as this "portrait of a truck" for a haulage company:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/meejahor/2073616479/sizes/z/
There's a slight mix-up in the video captions though. Where the captions say underexposed and overexposed, they've got the terms the wrong way round. Probably just a language barrier thing, though, as it's a Russian team.
I want to watch a full movie using HDR.
iburnaga.blogspot.com
The technique is promising, but the provided example video does not demonstrate a true advantage it has over conventional cinematography. They filmed with two cameras, one overexposing one underexposing, but they don't have one with the right exposure to compare with the composed HDR images. The city scenes are filmed at daylight, without any areas of high contrast that would make a high dynamic range necessary. The same with the people example, they even overdid it to give it a vibrant effect, making it more of an artistic tool than capturing shadows and lights naturally.
They should make a short film with city nighttime and desert scenes, that should be impressive. They should also contact director Michael Mann, he would jump at the opportunity to film HDR.
Trust me you want porn capturing equipment to stay the way it is. You do not want to be staring at the tiny hairs in glorious future resolutions and HDR exposure magic.
Where there are bright halos around every transition and your picture has no clear subject.
Call me a bitter old man, but wake me up when they have cheap HDR displays available to purchase so we don't have to do tonemapping on HDR images. I've been into HDR for a while and tonemapping KILLS hdr, it makes it look cartoonish.
There are VERY few cases where I have seen HDR done right. Everyone thinks HDR means using bloom like its going out of style... /grumpy
But, I have to say I wouldn't be someone who would ever use this. I can see the merit for some stills, I can see some use for documentary, I can see the merit for amateurs wanting to capture a wedding, or for limited VFX scenes in motion pictures, but as a cinematographer this is pretty much the opposite of what I would ever want to achieve.
Give me chiaroscuro every time. You only have to look at the work of Conrad L Hall, Gordon Willis, Caleb Deschanel or Nestor Almendros to name but a few, to see how beautiful shadow, silhouette and darkness can be.
HDR gives far, far too much information, and produces very flat images for motion pictures, in my opinion.
This is so much better than 3D technology. It's even better than high definition video. This is actually the process of creating better images. I am actually really excited about this!
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
At work we routinely create images with 12 bits of dynamic range. It's trivial to map this for 8 bit display. We use monochrome sensors, though, and I don't know if if the dynamic range is available for color.
Nate
This looks to me like the video equivalent of audio compression - squeezing the life out of the media to make it fit within a certain constraint,
Thanks but until the entire chain is HDR, I'll pass.
Ron
Ron Gage - Westland, MI
I've been purchasing Wide Dynamic Range cameras for 3 years now for my company. They make for fantastic surveillance cameras. By the way, WDR is even more dramatic than HDR (though this is only theoretical, as there's no industry standard definition of HDR vs WDR). I think this is only new in that multiple high-resolution full-motion cameras have been used in conjunction with one another to create a very high quality video stream in HDR, whereas the surveillance cameras I've purchased are only 4CIF and I only record about 4-8fps with them, certainly not high resolution or full motion.
HDR/WDR is fantastic technology, and its niche has been in surveillance, but very few people even in the surveillance industry have recognized the benefits. WDR allows you to see vivid facial features in extreme backlit shots or excessively dark environments.
I'm not an expert, but I play one on slashdot.
I don't know why you need me for this. She records all of her encounters in High Dynamic Range herself.
I'm not an expert, but I play one on slashdot.
Is it me or does that look exactly like newer videogames with heavy textures?
I had no idea what HDR was so when I started looking at the video I actually thought it was a videogame. Kindda reminds me of COD MW.
It it was true HDR then we'd need a (non-existent AFAIK) HDR monitor to see it. This is two exposures compressed down to a standard dynamic range image, aka fake HDR.
The novel part here is in the simultaneous capturing process of these two exposures.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
can you make a movie of my cock sliding into your mom's pussy?
I don't know why you need me for this. She records all of her encounters in High Dynamic Range herself.
In Soviet Russia High Dynamic Range records YOU sliding out of your mom's pussy?
Unless they're somehow collecting at least twice as much light, assuming that the beam splitting is perfectly efficient, then I fail to see how what they're doing really helps, as both of the images (or image streams) are going to wind up being shot at at least twice the ISO that they otherwise would be. That would not be good for sharpness and noise. There better be a large lens collecting light for these cameras.
Haters gonna hate...
Natalie Portman, naked and petrified covered in hot grits...?
(that should be good for some pointless funny points)
I'm not an expert, but I play one on slashdot.
Anyone know of any coding tutorials on doing simple, basic HDR processing from a single image? Pure coding, not 'load in Photoshop and do XYZ steps'.
With frankencamera you could do HDR and a lot more things in an "intelligent" camera with software. In fact the first implementation in a mass consumption device was in the N900, it takes several photos, regulates exposition and other parameters to make that photo in a more parametrizable way that the iphone could do. But not sure if that would be enough for HDR video, if needs that the input, in real time, have different something at hardware level. In that case maybe something like this 3D camera would be needed. And could give some meaning to such devices... not only shooting in 3d, but in HDR video.
Especially the part with the guy talking, made me think...
So someone's found a way to make real life look life Half-Life 2 Episode 2?
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
I wanna deprecate organic eyes. :3
"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds"
That's really cool...but they labeled their "underexposed" and "overexposed" backwards. Oops.
The guy in HDR looks pretty much like those antique documentaries in B&W.
I thought about Chaplin's but no, it looks like from even before that.
OT from now on: I remembered that flower girl scene and saw it again -- a masterpiece. The guy was really awesome...
The US national debt: $120,000 per taxpayer. Spent enough yet? [usdebtclock.org]
Assuming $120K per taxpayer is accurate, it doesn't matter.
Too many voters pay zero taxes. Basic math: zero X anything is zero.
Spending would be moderated if only taxpayers could vote.
That's pretty cool. It's almost like seeing the world as we can't see it. So games are naturally better than movies for:
3DTV quality & HDR.
Human eyes tend to see better in backlight than cameras. Is this why?
Are some of our photoreceptors more sensitive than others, giving us effectively the same affect as the article describes, but on the same retina?
I don't want to see an HDR video of you being born!
They have switched the overexposed and underexposed labels on the city scene.
Enhance 224 to 176. Enhance, stop. Move in, stop. Pull out, track right, stop. Center in, pull back. Stop. Track 45 right. Stop. Center and stop. Enhance 34 to 36. Pan right and pull back. Stop. Enhance 34 to 46. Pull back. Wait a minute, go right, stop. Enhance 57 to 19. Track 45 left. Stop. Enhance 15 to 23.
Give me a hard copy right there.
I assume they have tonemapped each frame independently (one can do this with qtpfsgui for example). But the examples only show videos of relatively static scenes. I suspect that tonemapping frames independently won't be good enough any more if you have fast-changing scenes.
HDR is just as achievably using a single RAW frame from a camera - in fact, Photoshop's "Black Fill" thing, or whatever it's called, seems to do just that. You don't need two cameras, just capture enough bits per pixel and you can "process" them as two different exposures to be merged.
Please reformulate your analogy in automobile terms.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
It isn't real HDR. Yes, the readout is in HDR. But the playback isn't.
For real HDR you need a HDR monitor, like the ones with LED array backlight, that can give many orders of magnitude higher contrast range than any existing monitors.
Nope, it's an interesting gimmick, but unless HDR displays enter common use, just a gimmick.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Just use a CRT.
This is interesting now but in time it will be so overused that you will be sick of it. See: bullet time, hdr photos, 3d movies. Now get off my lawn.
For the third of the Fast and Furious movies, we had to film at night in the spectacular Shibuya Square in Tokyo, with its many animated billboards and video screens. I really wanted to get an HDR film of the billboards.
For the driving green-screen sequences of the film, we had built a plate to mount three cameras, at 0, 45, and 90 degrees, to shoot panoramas driving down the street. To get the nodal points closer together, we had the cameras facing toward each other, with the lenses almost touching. It worked wonderfully.
By taking the center camera out, and replacing it with a beam-splitter, we had a down-and-dirty HDR rig using the other two cameras. Now, this was HDR on film, not video -- but film already has a very high dynamic range -- so two cameras with very different effective exposures gave us a tremendous dynamic range. In the 'normal' exposure all of the brighter signs were blown out, but on the beam-splitter camera you could see all the details of the structure of the lighted billboards. Quite cool.
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
I've been told by a camera geek friend of mine, that the Red One camera already does this internally.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
All they have done is overlay a low exposure with a high exposure. The whole point is to see contrast between high brights and low darks. There needs to be logic involved when mixing. For example, for any given area (determined by edge-detection): * Find light areas which have contrast on low-exposure camera, but no contrast on high-exposure camera, and use low-exposure camera's image. * Find dark areas which have contrast on high-exposure camera, and no contrast on low-exposure camera. Use high-exposure camera's image. * All remaining footage be a 50/50 mix. Now I have described that as a 3-way toggle, however think of it as a scale of low-to-high exposure selection for each area, depending on which one gives the most contrast. A straight 50/50 mix is just retarded. There NEEDs to be AI here. Otherwise... has anyone thought of making just really freaking insanely bright monitors? Just have footage which is mostly dark :) Bam, HDR.
Whats the harm in yelling 'Computer, end program!'? You could be living in Star Trek! Go on.. give it a try.