free HDR on mac?

[wmmk]

Hi all, I've always thought HDR looked really cool, but as most of you know, I'm an 8th grader without much cash (blew most of it on a MBP, K100D, and various charities) or a paypal account. All software is either free or so necessary for school that my parents buy it (stuff like office). Anyway, I've found a free HDR prograam. As a matter of fact, I've found many!
They're all here (http://luminance.londonmet.ac.uk/webhdr/software.shtml), and if you don't feel like looking at that, the choices are:

PFSTools
hdrgen
Photosphere

That seems to be about. My only criteria: results will look nice, and i can get an HDR from a single RAW file, as I'm not able to carry around a tripod and 8 different JPEGs. There seems to be a commandline version of photosphere that does RAW files, but I'd really like a GUI.

I also saw Qtpsfgui (http://qtpfsgui.sourceforge.net/), which claims to be sort of an open source clone of photomatix, but doesn't have any OS X binaries, which is a bit of a bummer considering that I'm not great at complining things.

What would you recommend for me?
Thanks,
wmmk

[ATD]

My only criteria: results will look nice, and i can get an HDR from a single RAW file...

No, a single RAW file will not give you an HDRI. You need to take at lease 3 bracketed shots to get good results.

[wmmk]

No, a single RAW file will not give you an HDRI. You need to take at lease 3 bracketed shots to get good results.


i see. what's the difference between HDR and HDRI? I was under the impression that you shoot a RAW file, change exposure, click on some buttons, and ping! beautiful image. guess I should have done more research. anyway, which one of these programs is the best?

[ATD]

i see. what's the difference between HDR and HDRI? I was under the impression that you shoot a RAW file, change exposure, click on some buttons, and ping! beautiful image. guess I should have done more research. anyway, which one of these programs is the best?

HDR and HDRI are the same thing, the I stands for Image. You shoot a number of shots, each at different exposures. The HDR program combines them into one image with a very deep (bit depth) image. I use Photoshop for mine.

[Karpfish]

What HDR(High Dynamic Range) does is take shadows and highlights and such from the different images to create an image incorporating all the good parts of each.

[wmmk]

What HDR(High Dynamic Range) does is take shadows and highlights and such from the different images to create an image incorporating all the good parts of each.

thanks, I now understand this much better. what I'd really love would be if someone could simply make a recommendation:o
thanks

[davidjearly]

No, a single RAW file will not give you an HDRI. You need to take at lease 3 bracketed shots to get good results.



Thats not entirely true. Whilst it is better to have images exposed at different stops, this can be done from one raw file and you can get similar results.

David

[wmmk]

Thats not entirely true. Whilst it is better to have images exposed at different stops, this can be done from one raw file and you can get similar results.

David
goodness! in this case, add being able to make an HDR image from a single RAW back to the criteria. (I'll usually just shoot multiple shots, but for action and such, I think single RAW->HRDI capability would be nice:))

recommendations would really be appreciated!

[ChrisA]

Thats not entirely true. Whilst it is better to have images exposed at different stops, this can be done from one raw file and you can get similar results.

David

If you start with only one image the technique is completely different. In the single RAW image case all you are doing is adjusting the contrast (gama curve) so that all the data in the RAW image fits into the color space of a JPG file.

The HDR technique is the combine (say) the sky from one exposure and the foreground from another and composite them into one image.

OK you cam claim the ne RAW image is the degenerate case of compositing. Like in geometry a point is a degenerate circle where the radius is zero. So one RAW image HDR is to a "real HDR" like a point is to a circle. They are the same only by a technicality.

You want free HDR. Use Gimp. Put each exposure in it's own layer then make masks and let the partsof each show through. This works very well if you have two RAW images one for the sky and one for the not-sky.

[wmmk]

You want free HDR. Use Gimp. Put each exposure in it's own layer then make masks and let the partsof each show through. This works very well if you have two RAW images one for the sky and one for the not-sky.

Sounds interesting, but I have three questions for you:
1. Could I just do that in PSE?
2. Is there any way to automate this?
3. Will this work better than the free apps I mentioned?

Thanks again,
wmmk

[ATD]

Thats not entirely true. Whilst it is better to have images exposed at different stops, this can be done from one raw file and you can get similar results.

David


A single RAW file is limited what's in the captured in the file, a 12 to 14 bit depth. You can stack as many images as you want (the same one repeated) on top of each other to make an HDRI but it's still only has the range of one RAW file. You can not create more detail than what was in the original file.

A HDRI is taking info captured from many shots at different exposures and combining it into a 32 bit depth file. I don't agree that the results are at all similar. Sure, you can get more range out a RAW file than a regular 8 bit image but it is not HDR.

By your reasoning a single RAW file is an HDRI.

[cube]

Don't use GIMP, which is 8-bit. Use CinePaint which also supports 16-bit, 32-bit, and floating point.

[ChrisA]

Sounds interesting, but I have three questions for you:
1. Could I just do that in PSE?
2. Is there any way to automate this?
3. Will this work better than the free apps I mentioned?


PSE? Yes. PSE would in fact be better but you said "free" and PSE is not free. Actually as someone else pointed out "cinepaint" is the better gimp version to use for this purpose but if you have PSE...

Automation: Why? The trouble with automation is that it can't know your intent. Are you trying to re-crete reality in the image our show the viewer something? Automation is OK for somethings, night scens with lights come to mind but for other things (sunsets) there is only one element that needs to be fixed and you may care about the contrast and color of that one element. So you correct it them composite it back in.

[EastCoastFlyer]

PSE? Yes.

Okay -- now you've piqued my curiosity... I use PSE on my iMac for minimal tweaking but noting so extensive. So if I have 3 bracketed RAW exposures of a sunset for instance, I can create an HDR, or something like an HDR in PSE? I'd love a step-by-step tutorial on how to do that (or a link to an existing tutorial).

Thanks!

[wmmk]

PSE? Yes. PSE would in fact be better but you said "free" and PSE is not free. Actually as someone else pointed out "cinepaint" is the better gimp version to use for this purpose but if you have PSE...

Automation: Why? The trouble with automation is that it can't know your intent. Are you trying to re-crete reality in the image our show the viewer something? Automation is OK for somethings, night scens with lights come to mind but for other things (sunsets) there is only one element that needs to be fixed and you may care about the contrast and color of that one element. So you correct it them composite it back in.

I see. Most helpful answer I've gotten all thread:)
I'll be getting PSE soon anyway, so if it works for HDR, then that's great. If automated solutions don't work, I'll just use PSE, but with that said, what do you think of photosphere, which is currently my front runner.

[davidjearly]

A single RAW file is limited what's in the captured in the file, a 12 to 14 bit depth. You can stack as many images as you want (the same one repeated) on top of each other to make an HDRI but it's still only has the range of one RAW file. You can not create more detail than what was in the original file.

A HDRI is taking info captured from many shots at different exposures and combining it into a 32 bit depth file. I don't agree that the results are at all similar. Sure, you can get more range out a RAW file than a regular 8 bit image but it is not HDR.

By your reasoning a single RAW file is an HDRI.




Thats not my reasoning at all. I explained clearly in my post that it was not the same, but still possible, which it is. Your word count was higher, thats all.

Don't paraphrase me if you're not going to consume what I actually wrote.

David

[ATD]

Thats not my reasoning at all. I explained clearly in my post that it was not the same, but still possible, which it is. Your word count was higher, thats all.

Don't paraphrase me if you're not going to consume what I actually wrote.

David


Instead of wasting your time saying that I'm not right, you should show us how that's done and correct the Wikipedia entry while you are at it. Nothing in that article even comes close to suggesting it can, should or is done from a single RAW image. In fact just the opposite, here's a few lines from it (bolding mine)

HDRI From Wikipedia

"In computer graphics and photography, high dynamic range imaging (HDRI) is a set of techniques that allow a far greater dynamic range of exposures (i.e. a large difference between light and dark areas) than normal digital imaging techniques. The intention of HDRI is to accurately represent the wide range of intensity levels found in real scenes ranging from direct sunlight to the deepest shadows.

HDRI was originally developed for use with purely computer-generated images. Later, methods were developed to produce a HDR image from a set of photos taken with a range of exposures.

... At the 1997 SIGGRAPH, Paul Debevec presented his paper entitled "Recovering High Dynamic Range Radiance Maps from Photographs". It described photographing the same scene many times with a wide range of exposure settings and combining those separate exposures into one HDR image."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDRI

[davidjearly]

Thats not entirely true. Whilst it is better to have images exposed at different stops, this can be done from one raw file and you can get similar results.

David

Instead of wasting your time saying that I'm not right, you should show us how that's done and correct the Wikipedia entry while you are at it. Nothing in that article even comes close to suggesting it can, should or is done from a single RAW image. In fact just the opposite, here's a few lines from it (bolding mine)

HDRI From Wikipedia

"In computer graphics and photography, high dynamic range imaging (HDRI) is a set of techniques that allow a far greater dynamic range of exposures (i.e. a large difference between light and dark areas) than normal digital imaging techniques. The intention of HDRI is to accurately represent the wide range of intensity levels found in real scenes ranging from direct sunlight to the deepest shadows.

HDRI was originally developed for use with purely computer-generated images. Later, methods were developed to produce a HDR image from a set of photos taken with a range of exposures.

... At the 1997 SIGGRAPH, Paul Debevec presented his paper entitled "Recovering High Dynamic Range Radiance Maps from Photographs". It described photographing the same scene many times with a wide range of exposure settings and combining those separate exposures into one HDR image."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDRI

I don't need to consult an anybody's-edited-version-of-an-encyclopedia when again, that is what I said. This time, why don't you look at what I bolded from my original post.

However, what I also said was that you can apply the same technique to one RAW file and acheive similar, but not as good, results.

David

[abrooks]

HDR is more than possible with a single RAW file, in fact its recommended if taking pictures of something that is likely to change between your bracketed shots.

If you're looking for an example, flickr is your home, took me 30 seconds to find one described as being composed of a single RAW shot.

http://flickr.com/photos/dapen/321047085/in/pool-tophdr/

[wmmk]

Could we please stop the RAW HDR debate and answer my original question, or at least answer it here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=261847)? That'd be really, really nice!

[nexo]

From a single file, RAW or any other format, you can only get the dynamic range that your camera can capture in one exposure. So, unless your camera is some super-fancy special model (which it isn't ... is an HDR-capable camera even commercially available yet?), it's _not_ HDR and all you can do is tone mapping. Therefore, combining different 8-bit renders you got from your RAW file does generally not make sense. You may still do it for artistic reasons, if you find it easier to work that way, but you will never get a result that you couldn't have also gotten by loading a single 16-bit image into your HDR/pixel app. Whatever you do, you will never end up with an HDRI, period.

[FrankieTDouglas]

HDR refers to a high dynamic range. As in, the amount of stops recorded in the file. So if you get 7 or 8 stops of lights in a RAW file, that's all your image will have. You can adjust the tones of that one file, but you can't use something that wasn't recorded in that file. And if you blow the highlights anywhere, just forget about it.

You're not getting an HDR from one RAW file, you're just "dodging and burning" it.

[Coheebuzz]

Ok i've been doing HDRI with Photomatix and Photoshop HDR for quite some time and while is true that a single RAW file cannot give you the dynamic range of 3 or more difference exposures, it still holds more information than a single JPEG.

And if the exposure of the original shot is well balanced, meaning no overblown shadows or highlights then you can bring out *alot* of detail using HDR processing. However that's not something you can't do already with Photoshop's basic tools like Levels, Shadow Highlights or dodging and burning as the post above mentions.

So while it's true that an image processed from a single exposure is not HDR in terms of color information, it's always worth the try in my opinion. I have made tons of great images out of single RAW's that i would otherwise drag the trash. I'll post examples if you want.

Btw HDR processing is not a new breakthrough as many seem to think. It's been used in photography, design, 3D animation etc as back as i can remember. I think what people are seeing and calling new is Photomatix's version of HDR, which is often overused and gives those horrible halo-ish, fake looking images. Use it wisely if you decide to get it.

[bzollinger]

Ok i've been doing HDRI with Photomatix and Photoshop HDR for quite some time and while is true that a single RAW file cannot give you the dynamic range of 3 or more difference exposures, it still holds more information than a single JPEG.

And if the exposure of the original shot is well balanced, meaning no overblown shadows or highlights then you can bring out *alot* of detail using HDR processing. However that's not something you can't do already with Photoshop's basic tools like Levels, Shadow Highlights or dodging and burning as the post above mentions.

So while it's true that an image processed from a single exposure is not HDR in terms of color information, it's always worth the try in my opinion. I have made tons of great images out of single RAW's that i would otherwise drag the trash. I'll post examples if you want.

Btw HDR processing is not a new breakthrough as many seem to think. It's been used in photography, design, 3D animation etc as back as i can remember. I think what people are seeing and calling new is Photomatix's version of HDR, which is often overused and gives those horrible halo-ish, fake looking images. Use it wisely if you decide to get it.

Yah, let's see some samples!:apple:

[Coheebuzz]

Yah, let's see some samples!:apple:

Here are some random photos form my library, not the best shots but i think they illustrate well what a single RAW can do. I've also included the originals for comparison.

These where all a single RAW file and processed in Photomatix or Photoshop to bring out detail. As you can see for yourself this technique works better for some than others. For example blown highlights cannot be fixed as picture 1 shows. Shadows on the other hand hold more detail, so an underexposed shot works better in most of the times.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/133/413018548_e676ad0750_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/130/413018544_9bbfe3db68_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/163/413018542_d89b11d034_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/175/413018534_a3e97664d2_o.jpg

Now you may or may not like the effect, but i think the results are far more interesting than the original shots, that i would otherwise trash.

Add the optional sunbeams or a cloud or two and you may have a keeper. ;)

[saxondale.]

I found Photomatrix Pro for Mac and it seems perfect but it costs. Are there any free stuff out there?

[rowlands]

<shamlessPlug>HDRtist 1.1 was released today, it's free Mac OS X HDR software. http://www.ohanaware.com/hdrtist/ </shamelessPlug>

[rowlands]

duplicate - sorry folks, can't see how to delete it either.

[Edge100]

You can try HDRtist, Free Mac OS X HDR Software http://www.ohanaware.com/hdrtist/

Or at least he could have...a year and a half ago.

Thanks for the spam.

[RaceTripper]

Or at least he could have...a year and a half ago.

Thanks for the spam.Or this morning, with a new version download.

What spam?

[designguy79]

From a single file, RAW or any other format, you can only get the dynamic range that your camera can capture in one exposure. (clip) it's _not_ HDR and all you can do is tone mapping

I think you nailed it -- most people think of an "HDR image" as what the program exports to: an 8-bit tonemapped JPG output.

[Edge100]

Or this morning, with a new version download.

What spam?

The 'spam' is the fact that rowlands, who is clearly involved with the development of the HDRtist application, posted nearly the same comment with the markup of <shameless plug> in a nearly two-year-old thread to continue to advertise his product.

That's spamming the forums. It's not like someone asked this question yesterday.

[RaceTripper]

The 'spam' is the fact that rowlands, who is clearly involved with the development of the HDRtist application, posted nearly the same comment with the markup of <shameless plug> in a nearly two-year-old thread to continue to advertise his product.

That's spamming the forums. It's not like someone asked this question yesterday.Ahah...didn't catch that. Good call.

[designguy79]

Oops, I wasn't looking at the dates either.

[pdxflint]

At least he called it a "shameless plug." I wouldn't exactly call it spam, though. I didn't see it in my inbox plugging up my email system.

I'm not all that impressed with the software, BTW. There is no control, really - just one slider. I guess it's good for those who want to do so-called "HDR" without learning anything - but the results become repetitive and non-interesting. Just my opinion... so you get what you pay for, I guess. And results based on how much time you take to learn a new skill - still remains true.

[rowlands]

Hi Guys,
I didn't mean to upset anyone. If you can tell me how to remove my posts I'll do so.

Thanks.

[windowpain]

I thought the software is ok.. not too bad for being free anyway!
Thanks for the link.

[MacCanon]

you will never get similar results with just one RAW image, no matter which program you use. you will only get the range of that one RAW image, no matter how many copies of the image you stack in layers or merge via HDR creation software, such as photomatix (which is the best, and most affordable, especially for students).
im a photography major, and a lot of time was spent on HDR for commercial purposes since the results are stunning.
the only way to get TRUE HDR effects is to use 3 or more images: one under exposed, one over exposed, and one properly exposed, and any other level in between those.