Hi Guys, im asking youre opinion on this because youre the most knolageable guys I know on this subject…and this is the first time Iv done this so if Iv done this wrong or missed somthing/or have totaly done it wrong!!! could somone please tell me!
I realize this is no the best way to make an HDRI, and its not a true HDRI…but its easy and quick
Last night I took an enviroment shot of a local church, I took the shots on raw format, I took about 6 horizontal and 1 up 1 down.
The files where then converted to 16 bit tiffs and stiched using PTGui, and then saved out as a 16bit ps file.. The final 16bit PS image is the top image…obviously in 8bit as its a jpg
Then in Lightroom I made a bunch of exposures - the 7 images in ther middle, these where saved out as 8 bit jpgs.
Then in HDRISHOP I combined all the different exposures and made a single HDRI file…it is the image at the very bottom (note it looks very similar to exposure -2, but looking at them in photoshop revieals more information in the 32 bit hdri)…also, I was expecting it to look like exposure 0…did i miss somthing?
also, here are some rendered examples, showing a test car, with 8bit and the new 32 bit reflections…to me atleast there more info in the 32 bit, and looks less flat.
Anyway…have I missed anything…what (if anything) did I do wrong, and what are youre thoughts?
Looks good chap!
In my very limited experience in making HDRI’s from RAW’s, I maded the exposures straight from the RAW image to get a better range. Though this was on single images and not stiched ones.
Is it possible to stich together RAW files? anyone??
Also dont forget to ditch the Exif data from the exposed jpg’s as it can screw things up!
this is the 1st time iv tryed making a HDRI at all…so god knows if tis right or not…looks kinda right though
To my knowledge, there is no stitching app that will stitch raw files…probably because there are to many raw formats. But, i know that raw is 12 or 14 bit (cant remember which) so saving them out as 16bit tiffs should cover all the range of colours in the original raw file
as for the Exif …good point, didnt think of that! Im not sure if that info was retained in the saved JPGS.
oh, another thing I did…the orignal raw file was underexposed direct from the camera…I did this because I thought if I under exposed it by one stop down it would capture more info of the sun area.
To my knowledge, there is no stitching app that will stitch raw files…probably because there are to many raw formats. But, i know that raw is 12 or 14 bit (cant remember which) so saving them out as 16bit tiffs should cover all the range of colours in the original raw file
Have look at these-
this first immage is at the correct exposure.
This one is coverted to 16bit Tiff then the exposure is lowered by -2 stops.
And this one is lowered by -2 stops as a Raw image then converted to jpg.
Look at the how the range is lost in the clouds and on the tower..
The problem with doing it this way is your gonna have a ton of stiching to do if its not possible to stich RAW’s.
Maybe think about getting a fish-eye lens or a chrome ball??
lol, Well, i only discovered this myself last night while experimenting
there is next to no range in that section where the sun is at its very brightest…I suppose thats the diffence between doing it by hand with only 7 shots, or using a tripod and taking 7 shots x 7 exposures (which is 49 pics for the crap at maths!) to make a true HDRI
see image.
its the Sigma 8mm 3.5, its pretty pricy, i think it was £400…but it all goes though the buisiness
its more limited that photoshop, but its super handy when dealing with 100s of photos, you can organise, manage and adjust very quicky, much quicker than PS..but, you cannot make major retouching adjustments in it, its not designed for that.
btw, if you want (or anyone wants for that matter) the 16bit image just let me know, ill have to shrink it down quite a bit though, the original is 8000k wide
there is next to no range in that section where the sun is at its very brightest…I suppose thats the diffence between doing it by hand with only 7 shots, or using a tripod and taking 7 shots x 7 exposures (which is 49 pics for the crap at maths!) to make a true HDRI
Yeah, its a very well getting 7 x 7 shots but thats alot of messing around!
I’ve been toying with getting a fisheye. Thats not to bad a price, I looked at one last year (sigma), and it was getting on for £800! Maybe time for another business asset
btw, if you want (or anyone wants for that matter) the 16bit image just let me know, ill have to shrink it down quite a bit though, the original is 8000k wide
Please, wouldn’t mind a look
the Sigma is at the moment regarded as the best fisheye on the market, but there are some cheepy russian lenses out there that you can get from ebay…around the £200 mark. they have the same FOV (180 X 180) but smaller aperture.
Yeah, its a very well getting 7 x 7 shots but thats alot of messing around!
yeah its actualy more than 7x7 because I took 8 shots not 7 :)…the other problem with taking more that one exposure is things like wind will make the branches of trees move and things like that..i think it would be next to imposible to make eveything line up…esp if theres 50 odd photos to stitch.
Ill upload the file to rapidshare and post the link here when its up.
heres another test, same as before…exposures genrated from 16bit tiffs generated from 12 bit raws..
1st car is the 8bit enviroment only
2nd car is the same 8 bit enviroment with 2.2 gamma applyed
3rd is the pseudo-hdri, no gamma applyed just raised the output to make it look like the original exposure.
the 8bit 2.2 one is pretty close visualy to the pseudo-hdri, but the hdri still has more range, and oddly the colours are more acurate, the 2.2 is a little over saturated.
The HDRI looks spot on! nice one 8)
BTW, are you in some kind of nice weather window over there! your shots all have nice blue skys, all we’ve had is cloud and rain for the past week !!! :lol:
lol, yeah I was quite lucky with the carpark one…the weather here (much like kings lynn!) has been awfull. The carpark was actualy taken last night around 6pm while walking the dog
thats what the HDRI looked like when saved out from HDRISHOP…if I increace the output it ends up looking pretty much like the base exposure. I know its not true HDRI, but the actual process of taking shots, adjusting, stiching and making a HDRI only taked about 30 mins…and 10 mins of that is waiting for the stiching software to do its job…its very quick
8 images…i only stitch the horizontal rotation ones (1st 6), and then in PS i cap the gaps at the top and bottom with the last 2 images…as well as retouching my (and my dogs) shadow out.
lol, yeah…I did look at that, god knows how much it costs, id be intrested to find out. :shock:
Although…its a big bit of kit, taking that around with you is probably going to be more effort than tripod/camera/fisheye setup…the real downside o using a standard camera is you would have to take 20 odd shots per rotation (at 60’ each time) to match the range of the spheronhdr
Im not sure how the spheron handles moving objects eather..but obviosly, with a standard camera there can be quite a bit of movment in the scene when you have to take 20 shots/exposures over a few seconds, and trees/cars are moving…thats alot of ghosting
