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."

22 of 287 comments (clear)

  1. a text C&P from the article by kaptink · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:a text C&P from the article by lgw · · Score: 5, Funny

      TL;DR: in Soviet Montage, camera manages multiple exposure for you.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:a text C&P from the article by yoyhed · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's the other way around.

      Even though we call it high dynamic range in videos and photographs, it's actually just compressing all the extra information from multiple exposures into a LOWER dynamic range, so we can manipulate/display it on our 8-bit screens.

      Games, however - such as the Source engine after it got the HDR update with Half-Life 2: Lost Coast and Day of Defeat: Source, actually do increase the dynamic range of a scene beyond what your monitor can display. They underexpose and overexpose parts of the scene when transitions between light and dark places occur, just as your eyes would before they adjusted to the new light, or as a video camera would depending on what exposure the videographer chose. This makes it look more realistic - just take a look at a bright outdoor scene in Half-Life 2: Episode Two and check out how shiny objects in the sunlight have blown-out highlights that gleam brilliantly, and then look at the same scene in the original Half-Life 2, where that object would look flatly-lit and fake. The "non-HDR" looks more fake because the dynamic range is compressed so you can see all the detail everywhere, which also gives it that flat "game" look.

      Of course, that last part is just my opinion - but I believe that in order to look more realistic, CGI needs to simulate the behavior of traditional cameras with a lower dynamic range (or that of your eyes before they've adjusted properly to bright/dim light). The everything-is-exposed-properly, compressed-dynamic-range look just appears fake to me, even though my eyes could probably perceive that range at the actual scene. I'm not sure why.

      --
      WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
  2. HDR? by afaik_ianal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:HDR? by mtmra70 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wiki explains it well:
       
       

      is a set of techniques that allow a greater dynamic range of luminances between the lightest and darkest areas of an image than standard digital imaging techniques or photographic methods.

      And their picture is a great example. If you expose the building well, the clouds are washed out. If you expose the clouds well, the building is dark. If you take pictures of both equally exposed then merge the photos, you now have a properly exposed building along with a properly exposed sky giving thus giving you more dynamic range. Think of it like instead of going to the lunch buffet and cramming everything into one plate, you go up to the buffet three times with three plates: one for salad, one for main course and one for dessert. With a little processing (trips) you end up with more range (food variety).

    2. Re:HDR? by mtmra70 · · Score: 4, Informative

      HDR looks so unreal even if at times aesthetically pleasing. Their "more real" filter didn't do the scene much justice too.
      Was the guy supposed to look that way?

      The video was not very good at all, so I'm not sure why it is a big deal. The video of the guy was more HDR than any other part, though it was very strange.

      Take a look at some of the HDR photos on Flickr http://www.flickr.com/groups/hdr/pool/. They give much better and proper example of HDR.

    3. Re:HDR? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's one of the problems with HDR photography. The light to dark transitions just don't look quite right and so the scene has an 'unreal' appearance. Either washed out or cartoonish.

      You see that all of the time in still HDR photography and I think it has to do with the limitations of the final media - movie screens, paper, computer screens - that do not reproduce the eye's ability to deal with contrast well. In prints, you can work with this and minimize but not completely remove the effect. I imagine that they could tweak their algorithms a little better but Internet video isn't a particularly high quality visual experience in the first place so there well be some limitations in how well they can do it.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:HDR? by plover · · Score: 4, Interesting

      One problem I realized after watching the scene with the guy is the video compression artifacts can be different between the two cameras. Even if the sensors were perfectly aligned with each other and the optics, the MPEG compression could be different because the values at each pixel will still be slightly different due to the differences in exposure levels. Different pixel values can cause different compression schemes to be invoked in each block, which will result in weird combinations of aliasing. I think this may have been partly responsible for the shimmer on his denim jacket.

      --
      John
    5. Re:HDR? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "HDR" images don't look unreal. Tonemapped HDR images look unreal.

      You can do the same thing to Low Dynamic Range Images, and they'll look just as unreal. Similarly you can take a 18 stop HDR image and apply normal image processing techniques and get realistic looking images.

      The *only* defining aspect of HDR images is the large amount of dynamic range they contain. The fact that people abuse that dynamic range is an aesthetic one completely separate of HDR.

      It's like saying that Photoshop makes images look fake. *Photoshop* doesn't make images look fake, bad artists make images look fake. You don't have to apply a stock lens flare to your family photo. It won't be too long before all cameras just shoot HDR. The largest application then will be to adjust the exposure at home without worrying about under or over exposing that shot of your friends on the beach.

    6. Re:HDR? by icegreentea · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can get HDR to look 'fine' or whatever adjective you want to use. It's just hard. The tone-mapping software/settings that many people use will just go and create doll skin and haloes everywhere. But if you do everything well (hard work!) you can get some really cool looking stuff. For example...

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/swakt1/2322363690/
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/swakt1/2322366898/in/photostream/
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/ten851/4972637653/in/pool-hdr

      Somewhat like many other art techniques, when best used, you barely notice it at all. And that is the most important thing to remember. HDR + tone mapping isn't just a technology, it is an art. Being able to capture video in 3 different stops at once is great, but it'll still look like crap unless you treat it with respect and give it the effort and time needed.

      Remember, HDR + tone mapping is just trying to create a low dynamic range image on a low dynamic range display that LOOKS something like what your mind perceives in a high dynamic range environment. Obviously, that's kinda hard, especially since the human eye can change its sensitivity as it focuses on different parts of a scene in real life, but not really when looking at a computer screen or print.

    7. Re:HDR? by davolfman · · Score: 4, Informative

      They used more of a dragan-ish style of HDR here. They set it up to preserve local contrast at the expense of actually mapping brightnesses linearly. That's why it looks so freakish: some tones are brighter than other tones that should have a physically higher brightness.

  3. Here I was thinking HDR video was old hat by scdeimos · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wasn't the first HDR video camera back in 1993? Granted, they called it Adaptive Sensitivity back then.

  4. Re:HDR == High Dinamic Range by blai · · Score: 4, Funny

    TLS == three letter acronym

    Cool

    --
    In soviet Russia, God creates you!
  5. Unimpressed by Ozan · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  6. Re:The holy grail of camera tech.... by fractoid · · Score: 4, Funny

    wtf? no intelligent aperture, unlimited storage and battery life? wake me up when obama sends me one for free.

    You have two of those embedded in your friggin head. :P

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  7. Re:The holy grail of camera tech.... by Lehk228 · · Score: 5, Funny

    and it also has to give BJs

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  8. Re:Odd lighting issues by arcsimm · · Score: 5, Informative

    The bright spots are indeed an artifact of the HDR process -- partulcarly the tone-mapping algorithms. On its own, HDR is basically a method of capturing intensity values that would otherwise fall above or beneath the threshold of a camera's sensitivity. The problem is, when yo do that you end up with image data that can't be completely represented within the gamut of a printer or a screen. You could simply display a "slice" out of the data, which results in a regular images at whatever exposure setting you've chose, or try to "compress" the tone values into your available gamut, which results in a washed-out appearance. This is where tone-mapping comes in. What tone-mapping does is try to compute the correct exposure levels on a per-pixel basis, by comparing its intensity relative to nearby pixels. Ideally, this results in shadows being brightened to the point where you can see detail in them, and blown-out highlights brought toned down (analogous to "dodging" and "burning" in terms of old-school darkroom film processing -- the dynamic range of film is much higher than that of photo paper).

    In practice, though, you end up with weird highlights around dark areas, like the ones you saw around the man's arms, because the tone-mapping algorithm is trying to maximize the local contrast in the image. It's brightened up the coat, and so it also brightens nearby pixels to compensate for the reduction in contrast. Some people try to adjust the algorithms to minimize this effect, while others try to maximize it for dramatic effect, or even an oversaturated, impressionistic look -- it's largely an artistic choice, though when done badly it can also be a sign of amateurism. Still others will manually composite multiple exposures to get the benefits of HDR imaging while avoiding its side effects entirely,

    The Wikipedia article on tone-mapping goes into great detail on the different approaches to HDR photography, if you're interested.

  9. Re:The holy grail of camera tech.... by Prune · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You forgot about full lightfield capture. This can be done with a single camera using ultra high resolution and a microlens array (or alternatively, an array of a very large number of tiny cameras). Think single camera, single shot capture of depth (3D) and all focus planes. Then you can reproduce the full 3D and multiple focus depths (as in, the eye would have to focus at different depths) on a flat display with microlens array covering it (again, need ultra-high resolution since focal depths and parallax viewpoints are discretized to the pixel number covered by each micro lens).

    --
    "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  10. Re:The holy grail of camera tech.... by aliquis · · Score: 5, Funny

    and it also has to give BJs

    Just get a cheap camera phone, those cameras all suck.

  11. Re:This is not HDR by black3d · · Score: 4, Informative

    Incorrect, it's true HDR recording. The process of viewing it on LDR/SDR monitors is tone-mapping, which over the years has been tuned to represent the best known science of what the eyes actually see at once - our retinas already make us susceptible to only being able to view certain ranges of light at a time.

    In other words, more information is being recorded than your eye can see at once, and you're complaining because when you see it, all that information isn't there? That's a pedantic, unsolvable contradiction.

    A true HDR *display* (unfathomably difficult to imagine, I won't begin to go into the problems with the source for all the light being in one location, while other light is also hitting the eye from the real-world outside of the display, making visual processing of the HDR display massively erronous), would offer no advantage to a tone-mapped image, as your eye still can't see more than a certain range at any given time.

    Tone-mapped SDR images actually produce images with more visible detail *at once* than the eye can distinguish *at once*. Sure, the eye can do things the still image can't, like focus somewhere else, shield out certain bright or dark parts, and readjust automatically to what you're now viewing - I'm not claiming tone-mapping will ever produce as much variance as the eye is capable of - but it DOES bring to light more detail in HDR recorded scenes than the eye could otherwise see at once looking at the same scene.

    --
    "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
  12. Franken/3D cameras by gmuslera · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  13. Watching the video by cvd6262 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.