[HDR-photo] HDR as the new digital negative

[Blochi]

Yes, precisely that is the idea behind HDRI. A format that is not  
restricted to limitations of input or output devices. All other  
formats, inluding DNG and DPX, are designed to closely fit either one  
of those. And HDR has already been established and locked, long  
before 90% of the RAW format jungle was even invented. When you save  
an EXR or Radiance HDR today, you can at least be sure to open it in  
2017. I wouldn't be so sure about that with a NEF file or something  
like that...

HDR is not so much a digital negative, because that already implies  
some kind of device. It's more like canned light from the scene. And  
isn't that the essence of photography?

Blochi


On Feb 8, 2007, at 9:29 AM, BillHughey wrote:

> I had thought to discuss the technical merits of HDR as a negative  
> format over the established (?) DNG format or perhaps the motion  
> picture industry standard DPX.  However that discussion gets bogged  
> down in things like how many bits do you need to store a photo of  
> angels dancing on the head of a pin!  Dry...
>
> Lets say you have been doing some HDR photography today, 2007.  If  
> you read the article referenced below, you might wonder what your  
> photos will look like in the year 2017 when you are showing them to  
> your grand kids.  If you saved then as jpegs or tiffs at todays  
> screen ranges of 300:1 (8bits per color channel) as most of our  
> photos are stored today, they might look a little flat next to  
> images taken with the cameras of 2017 and displayed on screens that  
> have a range of 10,000 : 1 or better.
>
> Okay, so you have your HDR 'negatives' still around somewhere in  
> your file system.  After finding them, you use the tone mapping  
> programs of the day (2017 remember).  Tone mappers have improved  
> greatly and the key idea is that now they don't have to work as  
> hard because they are not scaling down to a 300:1 display anymore!   
> So the images that you show your grand kids will look even better  
> than when you took them back in 2007.
>
> While this may not be tops on the list of the average amateur  
> photographer, think of the investment that pro photographers have  
> in their art!  Preserving that investment against the future should  
> be on their minds today.
>
> So, my plug for HDR is that it represents a handy digital negative  
> format.  If anyone wants to get into the bits and bytes of RGBE,  
> LogLuv32Tiff, DPX, or DNG  we can.  I am initially interested if  
> anyone was thinking along the lines of using it for archival storage?
>
> Oh, and notice the fantastic color photograph taken in 1915 in the  
> article below.  Gorgeous!  It also points out that color film  
> photography sacrificed some tonal resolution for color over black  
> and white film.  HDR can get all that back and go way beyond....   
> Of course the author also poses the question of whether a dynamic  
> range of 300:1 represents a 'sweat spot' in our perception of color  
> images.  To find the amusing answer, read the article:->
>
> http://www.cybergrain.com/tech/hdr/
>
>
>  The Future of Digital Imaging - High Dynamic Range Photography
>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> HDR-photo mailing list
> HDR-photo at hdr-photography.com
> http://www.hdr-photography.com/mailman/listinfo/hdr-photo